Preamble

The House met a Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order made upon 29th July, and agreed to.

TEES CONSERVANCY BILL

Lords Amendments considered, pursuant to the Order made upon 29th July, and agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

Ordered:

"That the several Amendments to the Standing Orders relative to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made."

SCHEDULE.

Standing Order 3, page 91, line 29, leave out "and the," and insert "If they have so certified, the Chairman of Ways and Means shall report the fact to this House."

Leave out Standing Order 22, and insert new Standing Order 22: —
22.—(1) Notices under Standing Orders 13 to 21 shall be given—

(a) by delivering the notice personally to the party entitled thereto or by leaving it at his usual place of abode or (in his absence from the United Kingdom) by delivering it personally to his agent, or (where that party is a local authority, or a company, society, or association howsoever constituted) by delivering the notice personally to the clerk or secretary thereof; or
(b) by forwarding the notice by post in a registered letter, addressed with a sufficient direction to—

(i) the principal office of the party (being a local authority, company, society or association); or
(ii) in any other case the usual place of abode of the party or (in his absence from the United Kingdom) of his agent,

and posted on or before the third day previously to the day required for delivery thereof personally, at such places, at such hours, and according to such regulations as the Postmaster General may from time to time have appointed for the posting and registration of such letters.

(2) Every such notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the Standing Orders which regulate the time and mode of presenting petitions in opposition to Bills."

Standing Order 31, page 111, line 17, leave out ''Board of Trade," and insert "Ministry of Transport."

Standing Order 39, page 116, line 21, leave out "at the Board of Trade, and."

Standing Order 93, page 160, line 9, leave out "or," and after "association," insert "or partnership."

Line 14, leave out "or," and after "association," insert "or partnership."

Standing Order 209, page 208, line 24, after "delivered," insert "or made."

Leave out Standing Order 212, and insert new Standing Order 212.
212.—Whenever plans, sections, books of reference, or maps are deposited with any Public Department in relation to—

(a) any Provisional Order or certificate, or
(b) any order or certificate which, although as made was not provisional, becomes, after the making thereof, provisional, or
(c) any order within the meaning of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, which is subject to special parliamentary procedure,

being an order or certificate by which it is proposed to authorise the compulsory acquisition or user of land or the construction or alteration of works, duplicates of those documents shall also be deposited in the Committee and Private Bill Office—


(i) in the case of any such order or certificate as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this Order, on the same day as the deposit is made with the Public Department or, if such deposit is made after a prorogation of Parliament and before the twentieth day of November in any year, on or before the twentieth day of November;
(ii) in the case of any such order or certificate as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this Order, on or before the date of the introduction into either House of Parliament of a Bill for confirming the order or certificate;
(iii) in the case of any such order as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of this Order, on the day following that on which the order is laid before either House of Parliament."

Standing Order 216, page 212, line 34, leave out "except."

Line 15, leave out from "which," to the end of the Order, and insert "has begun in a previous year."

Standing Order 235, page 222, line 14, at the beginning, insert "In the case of a substituted Bill originating in this House."

Standing Order 235, page 222, Line 20, leave out from "Bill," to the end of the Order.

Standing Order 236, page 223, line 2, after "Ministry," insert "or the Ministry of Civil Aviation."

Standing Order 236, page 223, Line 3, after "Air," add "or the Minister of Civil Aviation, as the case may be."

—(The Chairman of Ways, and Means.)

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Hospital Patients (Clothing)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why coupons for purchase of civilian clothing are not issued to patients in R.A.F. hospitals undergoing longterm treatment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. de Freitas): As stated by my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade on Monday, airmen who have one year or more to serve on 1st October, 1946, will receive an issue of 21 civilian clothing coupons. We also provide clothing for airmen who are patients in R.A.F. hospitals. This outfit includes pyjamas and dressing gown; a red tie, a white shirt and a blue coat and trousers.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the Under-Secretary of State appreciate the position of men in these hospitals who will be demobilised on discharge from the hospital and who are only offered uniform, plus a red tie, although they are never going to wear uniform again; and is any useful purpose served in pressing uniforms upon them when what they want is coupons to buy civilian clothes?

Mr. de Freitas: I will look into these points. There is, of course, the big concession of 21 coupons for those men who have more than a year to serve.

Permanent Commissions

Mr. David Renton: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air how many applications for permanent commissions are awaiting decision by his Department; and when it is proposed to announce the results of these applications.

Mr. de Freitas: Since March, 1944, about 26,000 officers altogether have applied for permanent or extended-service commissions. Some 5,500 have not yet received a reply to their application. We are issuing frequent selection lists and I hope that before the end of the year everyone will know what has been decided.

Mr. Renton: While appreciating that the hon. Gentleman's Department has a considerable task in this matter, may I ask him to bear in mind that many of these young men are due for demobilisation very shortly, and that it would help them to plan their future careers if they could be given an answer about this as soon as possible?

Mr. de Freitas: I understand that. Of course, all these applications have to be examined carefully, in justice both to the men and to the taxpayers. We can afford only the best.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these officers filled in application forms for permanent commissions some three years ago, and have not yet been told whether or not they are to be given permanent commissions? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about this quickly?

Mr. de Freitas: I understand that the scheme did not start until March, 1944, but if there are any which have been long outstanding and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me examples of them, I will look into them.

Reserves

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made with the formation of the Reserve of Air Force Officers and the R.A.F. Volunteer Reserve: and when applicants will be accepted for service.

Mr. de Freitas: I am afraid there is little I can yet add to the answers given by my predecessor on 27th March and 1st May. The hon. and gallant Member will realise that much has to be done on the accommodation side alone before a real start can be made with training and that it is bad policy to recruit men before we have training facilities. I can, however, assure him that everything will be done to re-form the reserves and to provide training as soon as we can.

Air-Commodore Harvey: While I appreciate the Minister's difficulties, may I ask if he is aware that many of these ex-N.C.O.'s and officer-pilots have been out of the Service for over a year and are rapidly getting out of flying training, so that unless steps are taken at an early date to train them the cost to the Government will be much more and they will not get the material? Will he look into the matter?

Mr. de Freitas: Yes, Sir.

Personal Case

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why Mr. R. H. Hunter was discharged from No. 23 Maintenance Unit, Aldergrove.

Mr. de Freitas: The work at this Unit has been declining for some time and Mr. Hunter is one of the employees whose services are no longer required.

Colonel Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that this highly skilled man is now unemployed? Is the real reason because he refused to leave his union and join the Amalgamated Engineering Union?

Mr. de Freitas: With regard to the second part of the question I have no information; as for the first point, this man was given an opportunity of transferring to work in this country and he declined to take it.

Married Quarters, Northcotes

Mr. Osborne: asked the Undersecretary of State for Air if he is aware that there is only one person in the married quarters at Northcotes R.A.F. Station, Lincolnshire, and, in view of the shortage of houses, if he will now carry out his officially announced policy by offering the accommodation to the local authorities.

Mr. de Freitas: These married quarters are already being allocated to Royal Air Force families who are at present mostly in private houses. We have to take our turn in getting the quarters done up, but we are aiming to have them all ready and fully in use this autumn.

Mr. Osborne: Is it not a fact that a similar answer was given to me a few months ago? Is the Minister aware that I am told by my constituents that the quarters in question are still empty, and can he expedite the matter?

Mr. de Freitas: I have attempted to explain that we could not very well take men and materials out of turn and prejudice the local authorities of Lincolnshire in order to get these buildings ready for occupation, but if the hon. Member finds at any time that there are buildings there which are ready for occupation and are not occupied, I should like him to let me know.

Civilian Instructors (Mobility)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Under-Secre-tary of State for Air when it is intended to close down the R.A.F. station at Kirkham, Lancashire, and transfer the civilian armament instructors back to their permanent station at Manby, Lincolnshire, since these workers have been separated from their families for over five years.

Mr. de Freitas: The return of these civilian instructors to their families at Manby does not depend on Kirkham being closed. It has always been made clear that liability to serve anywhere in the United Kingdom is one of the conditions of service for our civilian instructors.

Mr. Osborne: May I ask the Minister it he is not aware that these men were sent to Kirkham as a wartime measure and for the war period only, and will he reconsider letting them return to their families?

Mr. de Freitas: As I have stated, it is quite clear that these men are liable to serve anywhere in the United Kingdom. The functions of Kirkham and Manby are somewhat different and the instructors are not necessarily interchangeable. If, however, there is any case in which an exchange posting can be personally arranged between Manby and Kirkham I shall, of course, look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Bermuda-Baltimore

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether he will now announce the continuance of the B.O.A.C. service between Bermuda and the U.S.A.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): Yes, Sir. The B.O.A.C. flying-boat service between Bermuda and


Baltimore is to continue in operation until further notice.

Wing-Commander Roland Robinson: Can the Minister say what type of aircraft will be used on this service?

Mr. Thomas: Immediately, the existing Boeing flying boats are to be used. We are considering the possibility of using Sun-derland Vs, which will be named "Plymouths," when they become available.

Landing Fees

Mr. Rankin: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the reason for the increased landing fees to be imposed on aircraft using State-controlled airfields.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I refer my hon. Friend to the replies given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison) on 24th July and to my hon. Friend the Member for Acock's Green (Mr. Usborne) on 26th July. In brief, the landing fees have recently been increased to meet increases of costs in establishment and maintenance, especially at airfields provided with hard runways. I take the opportunity of adding that these rates will not apply to flying clubs, with whom my Ministry is willing to make special arrangements.

Mr. Rankin: May I ask my hon. Friend whether these rates will apply to British aircraft?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, Sir, they will apply to all aircraft except those of my own Ministry.

Sir William Darling: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that it is said that increased landing fees are in the neighbourhood of 400 per cent. and that such a substantial increase will have severe repercussions on landing fees in other parts of the world?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. Compared with prewar charges the increases are: for commercial aircraft, 50 per cent. for aerodromes with grass runways and 150 per cent. for aerodromes with hard runways; for private aircraft they range, according to weight, from 50 per cent. to 114 per cent. for aerodromes with grass runways, and from 150 per cent. to 257 per cent. for aerodromes with hard runways. I may add that there has been mis-

understanding because in addition to the prewar charges there was often an extra loading charge for each passenger.

Mr. Rankin: Since the airfields will now be nationalised, would my hon. Friend reconsider the whole question of charges in so far as it affects British aircraft?

Mr. Thomas: This is only a preliminary scale and the whole matter will be revised next year.

International Organisation

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he will lay before the House a White Paper describing the approaches which the Minister has made to other countries regarding the establishment of an international organisation to own and operate trunk services, and the results of such approaches.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir. As I explained on 24th January last my noble Friend's international negotiations all have the greater goal of international operation in view. Practical effect has been given to this principle in the arrangements made following the Wellington Conference in February last for the creation of a joint Australia—New Zealand—United Kingdom Corporation for the operation of air services across the Pacific Ocean. For the rest, however, the position remains as I reported it on 24th January last. I should add that in the course of the discussions which took place in Montreal in June last at the meeting of the Interim Assembly of the Provisional International Civil Aviation Organisation the United Kingdom delegation made it clear that the United Kingdom favours the international operation of international air services. Although supported by Australia, New Zealand and Belgium it was evident that no sufficient measure of international support was forthcoming to enable further progress to be made at the present time.

Mr. Mikardo: Although the position outlined by my hon. Friend is that the Government say they would like to have an international owning authority but that other Governments will not play, is it not, in point of fact, that the Government do not ask any other Governments whether they will cooperate?

Mr. Thomas: No, Sir. I have been charged myself with a good many of these


international negotiations and I have put the question specifically to other Governments concerned.

Flying-boat Base

Mr. McKie: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he is now in a position to state whether it is intended to use Loch Ryan, Wigtownshire, as a flying-boat base.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The position is as stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 17th July last.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Could we know what that reply was?

Mr. Thomas: The reply was that we must await the consultations with other Departments which are now proceeding.

Mr. McKie: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will bear very carefully in mind the anxiety which is being felt about the long time which is being taken to come to a decision? In view of the very vital part which Loch Ryan played in the war, will he give this matter serious consideration?

Constellations (Grounding)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation if he has any statement to make on the number and type of aircraft it is proposed to use on the Atlantic route of B.O.A.C. in place of the Constellation-taken off service; how long it is anticipated that they will be off the service; was there any clause in the contract of purchase to cover compensation for such an eventuality; and why these aircraft were purchased, in view of the technical and operational difficulties that this design of aircraft has continuously encountered, even before the purchase was made.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: As I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for South Blackpool (Wing-Commander Robinson) on 17th July and to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Proctor) on 24th July, I am unable to make a statement on the temporary grounding of the Constellations until the investigation now proceeding in America is complete. It is not proposed at present to provide alternative aircraft for use on the B.O.A.C. trans-Atlantic service. The answer to the third part of the Question is "No, Sir." The Constellations were purchased by B.O.A.C. because they were the most suit-

able aircraft available for operation on the North Atlantic route and I cannot accept the statements or implications contained in the last part of the Question.

Mr. Cooper: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if the Minister is aware of the report which appeared in the Press recently made by the American Airline Pilots' Association, which stated:
A majority of the pilots flying Constellations believe the planes definitely dangerous and unsafe for commercial airline use ''?
Is he aware that similar reports were in circulation when the B.O.A.C. first proposed purchasing these aircraft? Is he still satisfied, therefore, as to the competence of the technical advisers of the corporation on matters of this kind?

Mr. Thomas: The B.O.A.C. pilots who have been flying these aircraft have expressed their complete satisfaction with them. We are fully aware of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and we are satisfied with the technical advice given. These aircraft were ordered by airlines all over the world.

Wing-Commander Robinson: What steps have been taken, either by officials of his Department or of the corporation, to satisfy themselves of the airworthiness of these aircraft before making the purchase?

Mr. Thomas: We accepted the certificate of the American authorities, who have a very high reputation in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN COLONIES

Kipande Registration System (Kenya)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the objection of Kenya Africans to the Kipande system of compulsory passports, he is prepared to recommend that the ordinance under which this discriminatory practice operates, be rescinded.

Mr. Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make representations to the Government of Kenya regarding the abolition of the Kipande system of registration which is causing resentment amongst Africans in Kenya.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. George Hall): The Sub-Committee of the Kenya Labour Advisory Board, to which I referred in the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 14th May, has not yet reported, and I am not therefore in a position to add to that reply. I am in communication with the Governor about expediting the report.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a Kipande system in use in this country, in the form of an identity card whose termination was refused by Government last week? Will he see that the native East African gets no priority over the inhabitants of this country?

Legislative Council (Commercial Representation)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in which of the West African Colonies special representation is given to private trading monopolies in the Legislative Council.

Mr. George Hall: No individual firm is represented on any West African Legislative Council but all four Legislatures include at least one member nominated by the Governor, usually on the advice of such bodies as any local chamber of commerce or mines, to represent commercial interests generally.

Medical Services

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many African and British doctors, respectively, and qualified nurses are now giving service in West Africa; and what progress he expects will be registered in respect of the expansion of medical services and the increase of African doctors and nurses during the next five years.

Mr. George Hall: In order to give a complete reply to this Question I am asking the West African Governors for present figures and future estimates, and I will write to my hon. Friend when I have their replies.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he himself knows in a broad sense whether any substantial progress has been made in the absorption of West Africans into the medical and nursing service?

Mr. Hall: Some progress has been made, but I would prefer to await the

reply from the Governor before giving my hon. Friend any details.

Military Stores Disposal, Nigeria

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what amounts were involved in the destruction of food left behind in Nigeria by U.S. troops; and why better use was not made of these supplies.

Mr. George Hall: I have no information about this matter, but I will make inquiries from the Governor and let the hon. and gallant Member know as soon as I get a reply.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: There are allegations that large quantities of military stores in West African Colonies are being destroyed or going to be destroyed or dumped into the sea. Will the right hon. Gentleman direct his attention to that?

Mr. Hall: I certainly will—

Mr. Nicholson: I do not associate myself with that, but I have heard the stories.

Mr. Hall: —but I have not heard any suggestion that that was the case. When I was in West Africa in January that subject came under discussion and I was assured that there was a surplus only of Army lorries.

Mr. Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman extend that assurance to medical stores?

Mr. Hall: I will have inquiries made.

Nigeria (Disturbances)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has recently received of disturbances or demonstrations in Nigeria.

Mr. George Hall: I have received no such reports.

Lagos (Chief's Claim)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will reconsider the claim of the Akarigbo of Ijebu-Remo to £3,000 alleged to have been made in an agreement of 4th August, 1894, between the Akarigbo's predecessor and the Governor of Lagos.

Mr. George Hall: No, Sir. The Akarigbo was entitled to a stipend of £100 a year under the 1894 Treaty and the claim of £3,000 represents the sum of the payments which he considers should have been made to him since he was installed in 1916. But since then he has been paid a salary from Native Authority funds, which has now risen to £600, and I am satisfied that its payment fulfils the Treaty obligation; indeed a much higher sum is now paid than was provided in it.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that the dispute is concerned with the fact that payment for two or three items covered by the original stipend is now being refused? Would he not look into this matter more closely?

Mr. Hall: I have looked into this matter. In all the circumstances, there is no justification for the claim, and this person is very much better off than he would be if the agreement were applied.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it not true that the amount paid for the salary is for a specific service while the other represents what was given the Akarigbo some time ago?

Mr. Hall: I am quite prepared to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend.

Sir Ronald Ross: What functions does the Akarigbo perform in Ijebu-Remo for this £600?

Mr. Hall: The functions which, in the opinion of the Governor, give him the salary to which he is entitled.

Sir R. Ross: Are there any vacancies in these appointments?

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE

Iraq Oil Prices

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the retail prices of Iraqi petrol, paraffin and fuel oil in Palestine; on what basis were the prices fixed; and whether he is satisfied that the cost of carrying the raw product from Iraq justifies the much higher prices charged for the refined products in Palestine than in Iraq.

Mr. George Hall: As the answer is rather long, and contains a number of figures, I will with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Keeling: But is the Secretary of State aware that oil prices in Palestine are much too high—

Mr. Stokes: Prices are everywhere too high.

Mr. Keeling: —and that the Palestine Government were asked for pipeline way-leaves and were therefore in a strong position to demand reasonable prices? Was this failure to do so due to the fact that the British Government were, and are, a large holder of oil shares?

Mr. Hall: I do not think that the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question has anything at all to do with the matter. If he will wait and see the figures I am giving, I think he will find that the price of oil is not unduly high.

Following is the reply:

The retail prices of Iraq petroleum products in Palestine are as follow:

(The Palestine mil is 1/1000 of the £P.)

(a) Petrol. 150 mils per gallon including duty of 100 mils.
(b) Paraffin. 155 mils per 4 gallons including duty of 18.73 mils.
(c) Gas oil. £P.7.350 mils per ton duty free.
(d) Diesel oil. £P.6.950 mils per ton duty free.

The retail price for petrol applies throughout Palestine. The prices of the other products are Haifa prices; elsewhere in Palestine these prices are somewhat higher to cover transport charges.

These basic prices, excluding duty, were fixed on the basis of Gulf of Mexico prices plus an addition on account of notional freight and insurance, which is calculated partly on prewar costs from the Gulf and partly on wartime costs from Abadan.

With reference to the last past of the Question, I am looking into the matter of the prices of petroleum products in consultation with the High Commissioner for Palestine.

Police Recruiting Poster

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has considered the official poster advertising recruiting for the Palestine police; and if he will consider withdrawing it.

Mr. George Hall: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes," Sir, and to the second "No," Sir.

Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister be good enough to tell me what policing Palestine has to do with national defence, and whether there is any significance in the phrase "a man's job" in view of the fact that no women are making application for these posts?

Mr. Hall: The police are acting in strict cooperation with the military at the present time, and, if I may say so, they are doing their job very well indeed.

Mr. Stephen: Would not the Minister arrange to get the police for Palestine in Palestine?

Mr. Hall: There are quite a number of Jews and Arabs serving in the police force in Palestine.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister answer the Question I put to him, and not merely talk about how well the police are doing their job? What has policing in Palestine to do with national defence? Will the Minister assure us that this is not an attempt to reorganise the Black and Tans?

Mr. Hall: The police forces are apart from the defence forces in Palestine, at the present time.

Water Measurements

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what statistics of water measurements in and relative to Palestine have been compiled; to what non-official parties such statistics have been communicated: and if he will arrange to have them made available to the public in printed form.

Mr. George Hall: The information asked for by my hon. Friend is contained in the "Survey of Palestine" published in Jerusalem by the Government of Pales-time for the, information of the Anglo-American Committee of inquiry. Copies of this publication, in which Chapter 10 is relevant, are in the Library of the House.

Jordan Valley Scheme

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give details of the Jordan Valley Project referred to in the Report of the Anglo-American Committee on Palestine; and whether British technical experts have expressed their opinion on its feasibility, especially with reference to its potentialities for making new land available to settlers.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: On a point of Order, Sir. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to ask his Question seated? The hon. Member has not risen in his place for the last two Questions.

Mr. Stokes: [having risen]: Question No. 32, Sir.

Mr. George Hall: I understand that this project envisages the irrigation of the plain land of Palestine with the waters of the Jordan and the generation of hydroelectric power, partly by means of a canal taking water from the Mediterranean to the lower part of the Jordan Valley. As regards expert examination of such schemes, I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which will be made by my right hon. Friend the Lord President in opening the Debate this afternoon.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, Sir, I know, and that is the whole point. May I ask whether the report of the experts who advised this scheme has yet been made available to hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Hall: I do not know that any experts, with the exception of Dr. Lowdermilk, have examined the scheme. The hon. Member will see the scheme described in the book.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I know, and that again is the whole point. Only Dr. Lowdermilk has reported, but is it not the fact that experts who have examined the scheme do not agree with his findings?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Is it not the case that it is not only Dr. Lowdermilk who has examined this project and reported in favour of it, but one very notable American economic expert?

Mr. Stokes: It is absolute boloney.

Arms Searches

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what quantities of arms were found by the Government of Palestine before they discontinued, early this month, the military searches for weapons and ammunition in the possession of the illegal military organisations condemned by the Anglo-American Commission.

Mr. George Hall: I have not yet received a complete list of the arms discovered and owing to the blowing up of the King David Hotel it may be some time


before full details are available to me. I would, however, invite the hon. Member's attention to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) on 10th July in regard to the arms discovered at Yagur.

Mr. Keeling: As it is painfully obvious that those searches were not exhaustive, can the Government give us an assurance that they were not discontinued because of pressure, either from the Zionists or from any other quarter?

Mr. Hall: They were discontinued because it was the opinion of the Com-mander-in-Chief that they had achieved their purpose up to that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALAYAN UNION

Cloth Distribution

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether all sections of the population of Malaya are eligible for the issue of ration cards for the purchase of cloth; and whether he is satisfied that the cloth can be obtained at reasonable prices by those who need it most.

Mr. George Hall: Present supplies in Malaya fall short of the minimum required to operate any rationing scheme. The local Governments are, however, distributing available supplies of textiles under a scheme designed to get this cloth to those whose need is greatest and to prevent its disappearance into the black market. Prices and distribution under this scheme are controlled.

Distribution of Supplies

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give details of the agreement between the Government of the Malayan Union and the British Association of Straits Merchants for the distribution of goods imported on behalf of the Government; and, in particular, whether the Government exercises control to ensure that distribution is in accordance with Government plans for the rehabilitation of the country; and whether there is adequate control over retail distribution and prices.

Mr. George Hall: The agreement in question was made with the British Military Administration in Malaya, and is still being observed by the Civil Governments. The British Association of Straits

Merchants act as agents for the Governments and provide for storage and distribution in accordance with Government direction, for which they are paid reasonable expenses. A proportion of all supplies is allocated to the association for sale on a 5 per cent. commission basis, the remainder being issued by them to other merchants for cash. Under the agreement, distribution prices are determined by Government and the price control officer fixes all subsequent wholesale and retail profit margins. The agreement will shortly lapse with the end of Government procurement.

Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend make available a copy of the report upon the cost of living, and put it in the Library of the House for hon. Members, if that is at all possible?

Mr. Hall: That is another question, but I will look into the matter.

Trade Union Adviser

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give details of the staffing and programme of work of the new Trade Union Department, distinct from the Labour Department, which has been set up in the Malayan Union.

Mr. George Hall: I am not aware of any proposal to create a trade union department separate from the Labour Department in the Malayan Union. The senior of the three officers mentioned in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) on 24th July, has, however, now been appointed as chief trade union adviser to the Governments of both Singapore and the Malayan Union.

MALTA CLUB, CARDIFF

Mr. James Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will reconsider his decision to close the Malta George Cross Club at Cardiff, in view of the use made of it by Maltese seamen.

Mr. George Hall: I am advised that very little use is being made of the club by Maltese seamen visiting Cardiff. The club is being closed temporarily for cleaning and reorganization and it is hoped to reopen it in about two months time.

COLONIAL GRAIN PRODUCTION

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Colonies have done everything possible to produce the maximum quantities of Indian corn, millets and other easily-grown products of dry cultivation to meet their own food needs for man and beast and the needs of Europe.

Mr. George Hall: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that full importance is attached to producing crops of the type mentioned.

Mr. Reid: Has there been any appreciable export of food by any of the Colonies?

Mr. Hall: Oh yes, Sir, quite a lot.

Mr. W. Fletcher: What practical steps in the way of direct instruction that grain products like this will be paid for at reasonable prices have been taken?

Mr. Hall: There is a complete list which I have here. I will send the hon. Member a copy of what I have.

SOLOMON ISLANDS (REHABILITATION)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the rehabilitation of the Solomon Islands.

Mr. George Hall: Steps are being taken to restore the damage caused by the Japanese occupation. The Protectorate capital, which was destroyed, is to be rebuilt. A sum of £800,000 has been allocated under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act for development services in the Solomon and Gilbert and Ellice Islands. Medical, agricultural and other services are in process of being restored and expanded and a new education department is being set up. Despite a serious shortage of shipping, every endeavour is being made to re-establish normal trade.

Mr. Gammans: Would the right hon. Gentleman issue some comprehensive report so that the House might have some idea of the extent of this damage, what its value is in money and who is going to pay for it?

Mr. Hall: I will certainly consider that.

BRITISH WEST INDIAN AIRWAYS

Mr. Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will give a list of the services and the number of aeroplanes now being operated by British West Indian Airways.

Mr. George Hall: The company is now operating with six aircraft. As the list of the services at present operated by the company is a long one, with the permission of the hon. Member I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Gammans: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this service is now increasing or decreasing compared with, say, a year ago?

Mr. Hall: I should say offhand that it is increasing.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the service is still in receipt of a subsidy from the Colonial Development and Welfare Fund?

Mr. Hall: I am of the opinion that it is. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, last year and the year before it received a heavy subsidy.

Following is the list:

1.Trinidad — Mackenzie (Br. Guiana) — Georgetown (British Guiana). (Three times weekly.)

2 Barbados—Mackenzie—Georgetown. (Once weekly.)

3 Trinidad—St. Lucia—Barbados. (Once weekly.)

4 Trinidad—Grenada—Barbados. (Once weekly.)

5 Trinidad—Grenada—Barbados—St. Lucia. (Once weekly.)

6 Trinidad—Grenada—St. Lucia. (Once weekly.)

7Trinidad—Grenada. (Five times weekly.)

8 Trinidad—Tobago—Barbados. (Daily.)

9 Trinidad—Tobago. (Five times weekly.)

10 Trinidad—Grenada—Antigua—St. Kitts. (Once weekly.)

11 Trinidad—Barbados—Antigua—St. Kitts. (Once weekly.)

12 Trinidad—Barbados. (Daily.)

13 Antigua—St. Kitts. (Twice weekly.)

14 Trinidad—Barbados—Antigua—St. Kitts—Ciudad Trujillo (Dominican Republic)— Jamaica—Belize (Br. Honduras). (Once weekly.)

CABINET OFFICE (SERVICE PERSONNEL)

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Prime Minister why the total service personnel seconded to the Cabinet Office is larger than it was a year ago.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I have been asked to reply. The hon. Member has been misinformed. The total number of Service personnel seconded to the Cabinet Office is now 25 per cent. less than it was a year ago.

Brigadier Head: Presumably this is an interim arrangement. Can the Lord Privy Seal state when the long-promised White Paper on higher defence organisation will be published by the Government?

Mr. Greenwood: I am afraid that I am not in a position to say. I have answered the Question quite accurately.

Brigadier Head: I assume it concerns the right hon. Gentleman very much as it is an important matter.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, SCOTLAND

Mr. Hoy: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the increasing concern in Scotland at the growing gap between the labour absorption capacity of new industries and unemployment; and whether he is satisfied with the machinery for the location of industry and that, in particular, the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade at all times consult the Secretary of State for Scotland as well as the Minister of Town and Country Planning with a view to encouraging industry to avail itself of the favourable conditions of labour supply for development in Scotland.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I agree that the present volume of unemployment in Scotland is a matter for concern but the allocation of Government factories for civilian production and the large scale building programme which is under way, and which can be expanded as may be necessary, should go far to absorb the number of unemployed. For details of this programme I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) on 14th May. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative. The Scottish Office takes full part in the machinery both in London and in Scotland for dealing with distribution of industry matters, and my right hon.

Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is directly responsible for town and country planning in Scotland.

Mr. Hoy: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will consider advising the Department concerned to take larger areas of Scotland into the Distribution of Industry Act, especially in the East of Scotland and in the Highlands and Islands?

Mr. Greenwood: That really raises a question of legislation. I am afraid we shall have to amend the Schedule to the Distribution of Industry Act to do that.

Mr. McGovern: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that not only is unemployment increasing but that a more disturbing fact is that even in the case of ex-Servicemen given special places as trainees, the Government are beginning to wash their hands of the business, not being able to find employment for them?

Mr. Greenwood: The House must appreciate that this is a transitional period and part of the change from war to peace. There are sure to be local disturbance and increased unemployment. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should stop the training schemes, but that he is hoping what I am hoping—that we shall be able to absorb the trainees into industry.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is not the situation envisaged in the Question largely due to action by the Government such as their civil aviation policy, whereby the aircraft industry will be lost to Scotland?

B.B.C. (WELSH ADVISORY COMMITTEE)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Lord President of the Council by what method the members of the Advisory Committee for Wales will be appointed.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Welsh Advisory Council of the British Broadcasting Corporation, to which I assume my hon. Friend refers will be appointed by the Governors of the Corporation, who, in accordance with their usual custom, will take such prior consultations as are appropriate.

Mr. Freeman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be strong


resentment in Wales if any appointment is made on the Welsh Advisory Committee without consulting or receiving any advice from anybody in Wales? Would he not consider making such appointments on the nomination of such a representative body as the Welsh Parliamentary party? Will he consider such nominations?

Mr. Morrison: It will depend on what the House wants. If the House wants the B.B.C. to be run by Parliament and politicians, all right, but the tendency in the Debate was the other way. Whether we can get an advisory council to select an advisory council, I do not know, but if there are means whereby we can have informal consultations with representative Welsh opinion on the matter we shall be delighted to do so.

Mr. Watkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that whoever is appointed will be able to speak the Welsh language?

Mr. Morrison: That is a matter for the B.B.C. I have no doubt that would be taken into account, but if I may say so with respect, I think that to exclude a large number of Welshmen and Welsh residents who do not speak the Welsh language would be rather inappropriate.

Mr. Nally: Is my right hon. Friend aware that English Members of this House are so terrified of the Welsh and Scots that if the committee consists of 100 per cent. Englishmen, they will both get better terms?

Mr. Morrison: We will try to remember that.

GERMANY (PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS, BAN)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, whether he is aware that' a copy of HANSARD addressed to the Cardinal Archbishop of Berlin, has been returned to the hon. Member for Ipswich, marked "Contrary to Regulations "; and if he will now modify the rules which prevent reports and books being sent to religious and political leaders in Germany.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): Postal regulations are governed by Quadripartite decision and provide at present only for

correspondence dealing with social and domestic matters in mails to and from Germany. The desirability of extending these regulations to enable the inclusion of newspapers, periodicals and books is recognised and the possibilities of such an extension are now under examination. As my hon. Friend is aware, an experimental scheme is already in torce whereby political leaders in Germany may receive newspapers and reports, including the weekly edition of HANSARD, through official channels. This scheme is now being reviewed and possible extensions are being considered.

Mr. Stokes: But is my hon. Friend aware that, as far as I know, none other of the tributaries to the Quadripartite Agreement, which has already been burst wide open, has anything corresponding to HANSARD? Further, does he not think it important that, as we are trying to persuade people to indulge in democratic government, the full record of this House should be made available as fully as possible and as widely as possible to all enemy nationals?

Mr. Hynd: I agree that it is highly desirable, and it is for that reason we are trying to get agreement to extend the present quota possibilities by Quadripartite Agreement. It seemed to me that my hon. Friend was suggesting that the Quadripartite Agreement has been burst wide open. On the contrary, we are trying to get agreement on all these matters.

Mr. Driberg: By what authority does my hon. Friend's Department, or any other Department, interfere with the correspondence of hon. Members of this House? If my hon. Friend had written a letter to the Archbishop and enclosed a cutting from HANSARD, would that have been returned?

Mr. Hynd: I should say, "No." The question is what constitutes a letter and what constitutes a newspaper or a periodical. The fact is that we are committed 10 the quadripartite government of Germany and we are obtaining, as far as we possibly can, agreement on these matters. There has been no difficulty so far on the matter of postal regulations.

Mr. Stanley: Is it a fact that it would be perfectly all right for the hon. Gentleman to send his own speech to the Archbishop, but the fact that he sent every-


body else's speeches as well made it illegal?

Mr. Hynd: The regulations have been published and are well known. It is largely a matter of weight so far as the amount which can be contained in an envelope is concerned. The question of newspapers is largely a matter of mechanics on the other side including, largely, censorship.

Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Chancellor of the Duchy whether, in view of his experience of the difficulty of obtaining agreement, he really proposes to continue to stop the distribution of HANSARD in Germany until he gets agreement? Surely it is about time we took a bit of unilateral action in this country and allowed a little commonsense, including the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, to be distributed widely in Germany.

SOAP SUBSTITUTES

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food why it is that the largest manufacturers of the basic material for soapless detergents are required to export so much of their production as to cause them to lesser, supplies to the domestic market; and if he will state what action he proposes to take.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): While the present soap shortage lasts exports of the raw material for soap substitutes will as from 15th August be restricted to token quantities.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson - Hicks: Does it mean that more soapless detergents will become available to the hair-dressing trade?

Mr. Strachey: More soap substitutes in general will become available.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

New Zealand Butter (U.S. Forces)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food with reference to New Zealand providing 10,000,000 Ib. of butter to supply the U.S. Forces in the Pacific during the next six months, how much of the 10,000,000 lb. of fat, particularly lard, to replace the above mentioned 10,000,000 lb. from New Zealand would normally have come to this country without prejudice to the exchange arrangement above mentioned.

Mr. Straehey: I would like to repeat what I said in reply to the question by the hon. Member for Northern Dorset (Mr. Byers) on 26th June, namely, that the United States authorities have undertaken to replace the butter released by New Zealand in full with ân equivalent quantity of fats from their own sources.

Mr. De la Bère: But surely the right hon. Gentleman knows just as well as I do—and I am well informed—that both lard and butter came over here normally and, therefore, they are really not doing anything to replace that amount, and the present figures are quite misleading in this matter?

Mr. Straehey: I must contest the statement of the hon. Gentleman that he is well informed because, of course, some quantities of other fats have been received from the United States but an additional quantity will be received in replacement of this amount.

Mr. De la Bâre: It is nothing but the normal amount which is sent over here.

Coarse Grains

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Food what proportion of the 300,000,000 tons of coarse grain which have been purchased in the Argentine this year is maize; and what are the proportions of other grains suitable for cattle feeding.

Mr. Strachey: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to my statement in the Debate on 3rd July that we had in our possession over 300 thousand tons (not 300 million tons) of coarse grains in the Argentine and Brazil, not the Argentine alone. Of this total, maize was 78 per cent., barley 21 per cent., oats 1 per cent.

Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House now, before the Recess, whether anything is really being done to assist the farmers to keep their livestock throughout the winter, in view of the fact that large supplies are still available in the Argentine? Never mind the noughts, they are merely a misprint.

Mr. Strachey: It is perfectly true that the question is of the utmost importance, and a great effort is being made to obtain coarse grains from this and any other sources available.

Mr. De la Bère: This is definitely important.

Bread Rationing

Mr. Hare: asked the Minister of Food whether he is prepared to grant the extra heavy manual workers' bread ration to men and women employed as casual labourers on farms for purposes of potato lifting, fruit picking, singling beet, etc.

Mr. Strachey: The manual worker's ration is available to those workers who are regularly employed in manual work for an average of at least 22 hours a week. I have, however, made arrangements for casual workers in agriculture to have ample additional supplies of bread during such periods of seasonal activity. These harvest rations will be distributed through the farmers and they are intended as the equivalent of a canteen.

Mr. Hare: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he will make available to casual workers during this next harvest season a full equivalent extra bread ration to compare, shall we say, with the normal agricultural labour engaged on that work?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. The farmers will be able to draw the extra harvest rations in respect of casual as in respect of regularly employed workers.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some cases the farmers are not taking the trouble to draw these rations for their workers? Would it not be possible to allow the harvest workers themselves to get these rations?

Mr. Strachey: There are great difficulties in doing that, but I should like any cases brought to my attention where farmers are failing to provide these rations for their workers, because it is very undesirable indeed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many German prisoners of war are now beginning to idle at their work for lack of proper sustenance? Would he look into the possibility of varying the ration to the German prisoner of war, or of increasing slightly the calorific value?

Mr. Strachey: I can hardly agree that if there is idling it can be for lack of sustenance. We have just increased the supply of foodstuffs, in this case fish, to German prisoners of war camps, and their calory intake at the moment is by no means bad.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Will the arrangements that the right hon. Gentleman has outlined apply to school children employed on potato gathering?

Mr. Strachey: I would really like notice of that, but I do not think so. I think these are adult manual workers.

Major Niall Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food whether he will make arrangements to open branch food offices in small burghs in order to facilitate the exchange of BU units.

Mr. Strachey: Much as I would like to, I regret that it is not possible to set up large numbers of sub-food offices to help exchange bread units. This can, of course, be done by post.

Major Macpherson: Is the Minister aware that at the present time people who live in small burghs and country districts are faced with the alternative of spending a considerable sum of money and a long time on bus journeys in order to get to the main food office, or of waiting anything from a week to two months for a reply from the food office?

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. and gallant Member could give any instances of delays in replies in this type of correspondence, I will look into them.

Mr. Austin: What is the administrative difficulty which prevents the housewife exchanging BU's over the counter?

Mr. Strachey: There are a lot of Questions on the Paper on that point. The difficulty is that it would mean putting bread on points. A commodity of the size of bread would completely outweigh the whole of the rest of the points scheme, and make it impossible to allocate the rest of the foodstuffs to meet the points rationing scheme.

Mr. Pickthorn: asked the Minister of Food if he will give the basis on which he calculates that bread rationing combined with the slight increase in the meat ration reduces the average British calorie consumption from 2,850 to 2,800; and what is his estimate of the calorific value of a day's rations.

Mr. Strachey: I have estimated that bread rationing would save 7 per cent. of our flour consumption. This would mean an average reduction of 70 calories a day. The increase of 2d. a week in the meat ration represents an average of 35


calories a day. The combined result would therefore reduce our estimated calorie intake from 2,850 to some 2,800 a day. I have no figures for the rationed foods alone.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: As the Minister has estimated what the saving would be, could he say what the saving has been for the first week of bread rationing?

Mr. Strachey: No, figures are not yet available. They soon will be, and I think they will be of interest.

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Food approximately how many retail shopkeepers previously selling bread in addition to other foods have declined to do so since the announcement of rationing.

Mr. Strachey: It would, I am afraid, be impracticable to get precise figures, but the information which is so far available indicates the number is very small.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that no fewer than 50 out of 2,000 retailers supplied by one bakery in Lancashire have refused to accept any more supplies, and that this makes it much more difficult for people? Is he proposing to take any action?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. We have not received any information of that sort.

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he is instituting legal proceedings against those bakers who, since 21st July, because they had surplus stocks, sold cakes off the ration.

Mr. Strachey: If the hon. Member is referring to cases in which authority has been given by my officers for sales of cakes off the ration the answer is, of course, "No, Sir." But I must repeat that such permission will seldom if ever be given henceforward. Where no such permission has been given the sellers, if any, have undoubtedy rendered themselves liable to prosecution and my enforcement officers will consider each case on its merits.

Sir W. Smithers: In view of the large amount of bread and cakes that have been sold off the ration, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman by what authority of this House he exercises these dictatorial powers?

Mr. Strachey: That is the answer to the hon. Member's next Question The powers are under Article 28 of the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware that a large number of workers in the centre of the city have been used to purchasing these cakes at works canteens, and have come from offices and warehouses for that purpose, and that no provision is made for that class of worker?

Mr. Strachey: I take it that the hon. Member has in mind the office worker. He has to purchase within the ration allowance like everyone else. I do not see how we could make a special allowance for this type of worker.

Poultry Food (Bread)

Mr. Hare: asked the Minister of Food what deliveries of bread have been made from London to S.A.P.P.A. poultry dealers, of Bury St. Edmunds; and how such an arrangement came to be made.

Mr. Strachey: Some months ago a quantity of bread, unfit for human consumption, was consigned to this Association for utilisation as poultry food. This transaction was unobjectionable. But if the hon. Member has any further or more precise information, I shall be very glad to investigate it.

Egg Control

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Food if he is prepared to withdraw egg control in Great Britain, and so bring this country in line with Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Italy and Greece, where no egg ration obtains.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir; control is necessary to ensure that the available supplies of eggs are distributed fairly amongst consumers. I do not share the hon. Member's apparent assumption that foreign arrangements are necessarily superior to our own.

Sir W. Darling: Is the Minister aware that at the end of the last war—in 1918, to be precise—the price of an egg in this country was 6d., but the high price received brought other producers into the market, and it fell to 2d.? Cannot that process be followed in the present circumstances?

Mr. Strachey: It is perfectly possible to apply the method advocated by the hon.


Member by increasing prices, but we happen to think it the worst possible method. We are also sure that it could not at present increase supplies, which are limited by feeding stuffs.

Milk Distribution (Working Party)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Minister of Food when he is likely to be in a position to alter the arrangements for the distribution of milk so as to allow consumers freedom of choice of a retailer.

Mr. Strachey: I am setting up immediately a small working party of independent advisers to review the whole question of the distribution of milk, from the point at which the Ministry of Food takes over ownership to the point at which it is delivered to the consumer. The object of the review will be to make recommendations ensuring that safe clean milk is delivered to the consumer as efficiently and economically as possible. As part of this review, the question of retail delivery will be examined, and I propose to ask the working party to give special and early consideration to this matter.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the names of the working party, and whether they include any members of the Marketing Board?

Mr. Strachey: No, the invitations have not yet gone out.

Mr. Gammans: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the producer-retailers will be represented?

Mr. Strachey: I do not think I can begin giving assurances at the moment. The composition of the working party is not settled.

Mr. Rhys Davies: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will take into account in this connection the men who are actually implementing his regulations in the distributing trade, and see that they are connected with the committee?

Mr. Strachey: I think that is a very useful suggestion.

Siamese Rice

Mr. W. Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food the total amount of rice shipped from Siam during June, 1946.

Mr. Strachey: Thirty-nine thousand, two hundred tons.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that 36,000 tons was the figure shipped in the previous month and that since then a new agreement has been signed which, we are told, should produce more, and in view of the vital need for this rice in India and Malaya, will a bigger effort be made to get a bigger flow of this rice to increase the amount available in countries where its arrival will prevent starvation on a large scale?

Mr. Strachey: One could not exaggerate the importance of increasing the flow of Siamese rice at the moment, but the figure is rising, and the new agreement was hardly operating during this-period. We will certainly watch the increase with the greatest possible care and take whatever steps are necessary.

Tuberculous Persons (Eggs)

Major N. Macpherson: asked the Minister of Food whether he will arrange for a priority ration of eggs to be made regularly to "persons suffering from tuberculosis, against a doctor's certificate.

Mr. Strachey: It is with much reluctance that I cannot, at the present time, adopt the hon. Member's suggestion. The Special Diets Advisory Committee of the Medical Research Council have given careful consideration to the special needs of these patients, and have consulted with the organisations concerned with the care and treatment of persons suffering from tuberculosis. The extra foods, 14 pints of milk and I oz. of cooking fats a week, which have been allowed, are in accordance with their recommendations.

Price Controls

Sir W. Darling: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, following on the withdrawal of controls in the U.S.A., New York prices of butter have been reduced from 3s. 3d. to 3s., of roasting beef from 2s. o½d. to Is. 9½d., of sirloin steak from 2s. 1½d. to 2s. 0½d. and of lamb chops from 2S. o½d. too Is. II½d.; and if he is prepared to experiment by withdrawing controls in selected foods with the intention of lowering prices in Great Britain.

Mr. Strachey: The price changes in the United States have been as follows: Butter —before decontrol, 3s. 4½d. per lb., after decontrol, an average of 3s. 8½d. Roast


beef—before decontrol Is. II½d. per lb., after decontrol, an average of 2s. 8½d. Sirloin steak—before decontrol 2S. 9d. per lb., after decontrol, an average of 3s. 8½d. Loin Jamb chop—before decontrol 3s. 2d. per lb., after decontrol, an average of 3s. 8½d. Recent American experience is, therefore, not encouraging, On the other hand, as and when a foodstuff comes into really plentiful supply price control, as such, will become unnecessary, and will be removed.

Sir W. Darling: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will thank me for the opportunity I have given him, but has he not before him a longer range of food policy than that implied in the answer to the Question? Is he not aware that high prices for food, as in the case of any other commodity, tend to attract competition into the market, and ultimately bring down prices?

Mr. Collins: Is the Minister aware that in 1920, when the controls had been removed from foodstuffs, prices of foodstuffs mentioned in the Question were very much higher than they are today? Will he give an assurance to the people of this country that no steps such as are mentioned by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), will be taken until there are sufficient supplies for all?

Mr. Strachey: I can readily give an assurance on those lines, because I cannot subscribe to the view that high prices are a panacea for food shortage.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister aware that his self-satisfaction costs the country £334 million a year?

Major Cecil Poole: Is the Minister aware that with the slight corrections he has made, the terms of the Question by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) are perfectly correct?

Mr. Stokes: Is it not perfectly clear from the hon. Member's question that he either did not listen to, or did not understand, the statement made by the Minister?

Tinned Stewed Steak

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that Jaydo brand stewed steak, for which 16 points must be surrendered, and which is packed by Irish Canners, Limited, Dublin, for Jack Dolan, Limited, and inspected and passed by the Department of Agriculture,

Eire, is in fact either corned beef or so like it as to be almost indistinguishable from it; and whether he will take steps to ensure that where householders have to surrender points for tinned goods, there shall be an implied warranty that the contents are correctly described on the tin.

Mr. Strachey: The Defence (Sale of Food) Regulations, 1943, apply to tinned goods, and afford consumers protection against false descriptions. I am satisfied that in this particular case the tins contain stewed steak, and not corned beef, and the contents of the tins are correctly described.

Sir R. Ross: Will the Minister advise the housewives concerned to protect themselves by buying steak from Northern Ireland, which always gives satisfaction?

Tinned Salmon

Mrs. Nichol: asked the Minister of Food if he will consider down-pointing grade I salmon, in view of the proposed additional purchases of salmon from the U.S.A.

Mr. Strachey: I will certainly do so when supplies warrant it but I am afraid that this cannot in any case be much before the end of the year.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Churchill: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about the date of reassembly, and the Business for that week?

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): We propose that the House should resume in the autumn on Tuesday, 8th October. I would remind the House that power already exists for Mr. Speaker, on representations being made by the Government, to call the House together at an earlier date, if such a course should appear necessary in the public interest.
The Business which we propose to take during the first week after the Recess is as follows:
Tuesday, 8th October—Second Reading of the Atomic Energy Bill, and Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Wednesday, 9th October—Report and Third Reading of the Hill Farming Bill; Second Reading of the Police (Scotland)


Bill [Lords]; County Councils Associa-ciation (Scotland) Bill; and of the Education (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Thursday, 10th October—There will be an opportunity for a Debate on housing in Scotland on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Friday, nth October—Committee and remaining stages of the Atomic Energy Bill.
During the week we also hope to take the Second Reading of the Roosevelt Memorial Bill, if reported upon by the Examiners.

BILLS PRESENTED

ROOSEVELT MEMORIAL BILL

"To provide for the erection in Grosvenor Square, in the City of Westminster, of a statue of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the laying out of the Square as a garden and its opening for the use and enjoyment of the public in perpetuity; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by the Prime Minister; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Ernest Bevin, Mr. Ede and Mr. Tomlinson; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

COUNTY COUNCILS ASSOCIATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

"to amend the law with regard to contributions by county councils to the Association of County Councils in Scotland and the payment of expenses incurred by members of county councils in attendance at meetings of that Association or of committees or sub-committees thereof; and to make provision with regard to the superannuation of the officers of that Association and of persons in their employment," presented by Mr. Westwood; supported by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Thomas Fraser; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PALESTINE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Whiteley.]

3.37 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am opening this Debate in the unexpected absence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. As the House knows, the Prime Minister has gone to Paris for the Peace Conference. We also deplore the absence of the

Foreign Secretary from this Debate. He was to have taken part in it; indeed it is a subject in which he has taken a very keen interest. The House has already expressed, in its own way, its sympathy and best wishes to the Foreign Secretary. On his behalf, I should like to express appreciation and thanks. Therefore, the House will appreciate that I open this Debate somewhat unexpectedly. I will do my best to give the House the view of the Government in much the same scop*; as undoubtedly would have been the case with the Prime Minister. Indeed, we have had an exciting few days upon this subject, and only today telecommunication services of various kinds, and in various parts of the world, have been active, telling us the latest developments and the latest position.
This Debate takes place in the shadow of a tragedy that must have moved the most war-hardened among us. In the destruction of the Government offices-at the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, 84 men and women—Arabs, Jews, British —were killed, and 46 injured, while 22 are still missing. These were people innocent of any crime, members of the public going about their ordinary business, and many loyal and single-hearted servants of the community. I am sure that the whole House would wish me to express again the deep sympathy felt by the whole British people for the victims of this outrage. Police and military forces have, on each occasion of acts of terrorism, instituted measures to track down and arrest those responsible.
The greatest obstacle to success in these operations has been the refusal of the Jewish population in Palestine to cooperate with the forces of law and order. Jewish settlers have resorted to passive resistance of the most determined kind against searches for terrorists. The Government have been equally determined to bring the perpetrators of these outrages to account, and reached the conclusion that radical action was needed against the organisers of illegal armed forces, and the organisations they control. Action to this end was initiated on 29th June when widespread arrests and searches were carried out by all the Security Forces in Palestine. The examination of detainees and the scrutiny of documents seized in those searches was still proceeding, when the latest and most tragic incident occurred—the destruction at the King


David Hotel. Immediate action was taken to pursue the perpetrators of the outrage and 446 Jews were arrested, whose records showed association with the terrorist organisations. As there was clear evidence that some, if not all, of the persons responsible for the Jerusalem crime came from Tel Aviv, military operations in that town took place on 30th July to apprehend them.
The House will expect me to say a word about the letter which, according to newspaper reports, General Barker, the military commander in Palestine, sent to 'his officers forbidding British soldiers from relationships of a social character with Jews, and stating that any association in the way of duty should be as brief as possible, and kept to the business at hand. First, let me say that though the Government are satisfied that the instructions given by the Commander were justified in the present disturbed state of the country, at the same time, making all allowances for the provocation to which our Forces are exposed, and recognising that the letter was written shortly after the outrage at the King David Hotel, the Government feel that they must dissociate themselves from the actual terms in which the letter is couched. The Chief of the Imperial General Staff is dealing with this aspect of the matter, and I am sure that it can be safely left in Field-Marshal Montgomery's competent hands. But the House will, of course, bear in mind the difficult and delicate nature of the operations on which our Forces in Palestine are at present engaged, and I am confident, too, that the House will wish me to say that we fully appreciate how heavy is the strain under which both the Army and the civilian officials have been carrying out their duties, and to express our admiration for the magnificent way in which they have discharged them.
At this point, I should like to say a word on the subject of the compensation payable to the dependants of the dead and to the injured. Nothing we can do can make up to them for the irreparable personal loss they have suffered, but it Is the duty of the Government to ensure that they do not suffer more than is inevitable and that they should be spared financial anxieties as far as is possible. The families of British and Palestinian civil servants and police are provided for

by special legislation which has been operative since 1935, dealing with pension and compensation questions arising out of acts of terrorism. This legislation will be interpreted and administered with the maximum generosity and special provision will, if necessary, be made to deal with cases which may for technical reasons fall outside its sphere, or in which special circumstances make the compensation provided under the legislation inadequate. The provisions of the Royal Warrant will apply to the dependants of soldiers who lost their lives. Dependants of other victims not included in the above category, will be provided for by special arrangements as necessary. In the meantime, instructions have been given to ensure that payments continue to be made to families pending the conclusion of final arrangements for their financial support.
The shock of the King David Hotel explosion has surely aroused us to a fuller understanding, if that were needed, of the horrible and monstrous nature of those "evil things"—to borrow a phrase used on a famous occasion—against which we are fighting. The curse of Hitler is not yet fully removed. Some of his victims fleeing from the ravaged ghettos of Europe have carried with them the germs of those very plagues from which they sought escape—intolerance, racial pride, intimidation, terrorism and the worship of force. We are reminded that, in discussing the Palestine problem, we are dealing not only with the question of the displaced persons in Europe—though, as I shall show, we have given most anxious attention to that aspect—but also with the clash of political forces, deeply rooted in history and stirring strong and, if unwisely directed, terrible emotions. Zionism is regarded by its supporters as the expression of a profound and splendid impulse in the soul of the Jewish people, and its purpose as transcending the material needs of the immediate present. Let them beware, however, lest this modern perversion of their faith brings ruin upon them and it. Sane and healthy nationalism has inspired many of the finest achievements of mankind; its perversion spells only degradation and depravity.
The leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine have, we feel bound to say, failed to preserve their movement from


the contagion of those false ideals of which I have spoken. Many of them seem to have been drawn into courses which their own consciences must at first have condemned. The death of Lord Moyne in November, 1944, came as a startling proof of the evil nature of Palestinian terrorism and the lengths to which it would go. After that for a time the Jewish Agency cooperated with the Government in a campaign against the illegal organisations, the Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Stern Gang. There was, for some months, a lull in terrorist activities, but in May, 1945, following threats by the Irgun Zvai Leumi that V-Day for the world would be D-Day for them, there was a renewed outbreak of violence.
The Anglo-American Committee have recorded how the Jewish Agency ceased to provide that cooperation with the Mandatory which is the duty expressly laid upon them by the Mandate. Indeed, after the attacks on the police headquarters and police stations in December, 1945, when eight lives were lost, Mr. Ben Gurion, the Chairman of the Executive of the Jewish Agency, in a statement issued to the Press by his authority, describing an interview which he and Mr. Shertok had had with the High Commissioner, indicated that the Agency could not assist in preventing such acts, excusing themselves on the ground that, in the words of the statement, it was difficult to appeal to the Jewish community to observe the law at a time when the Mandatory Government was itself consistently violating the fundamental law of the country embodied in the Palestine Mandate.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can we have the date of that?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot say. It was some time towards the end of last year; I am told it was in December. On this, the Anglo-American Committee comment:
So long as this kind of view is put forward by the leaders of the Jewish Agency it is impossible to look for settled conditions.
Several leaders of the Agency had already become directly implicated in the terrorist campaign. Of this His Majesty's Government have ample evidence, of which selections have been published in the recent White Paper. The cumulative effect of this evidence in recent months was such that, anxious as we had been

to avoid any additional disturbance of the situation while the Anglo-American discussions were in train, His Majesty's Government were driven to the decision that drastic action could no longer be postponed. The High Commissioner was accordingly authorised to carry out the operations which began on 29th June, with a view to breaking up the illegal organisations and detaining those responsible for the campaign of violence. I do not propose to dwell further on that matter now, though there will be ample opportunity to raise it, if hon. Members so desire, during the course of the Debate. I should myself prefer, and I think the House, generally, will take the view that it would be more profitable, to turn away from the sombre record of the past, and direct the attention of the House forward to the way by which we believe the peoples of Palestine may be led to a brighter and happier future.
Representatives of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, whom I shall describe as the expert delegations, have completed their examination of the recommendations made in the report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on the problems of European Jewry and Palestine. The experts made unanimous recommendations on both sides, British and American, as to the policy to be adopted in respect of all the matters covered by the report of the Anglo-American Committee; and I think that I should outline, inevitably at some length, the main features of their proposals.
The expert delegations first dealt with the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee regarding the position of the Jews in Europe. The events of recent years, after Hitler's rise to power, have given a special emphasis to the character of the Jewish National Home as a sanctuary for those who could reach it from among the tragically few survivors of European Jewry. It is the pressure of immigration from Europe that has so intensified the difficulties of the Palestine problem. The Anglo-American Committee recognised that Palestine alone cannot meet the immigration needs of the Jewish victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution, and recommended that our two Governments, in association with other countries—for the whole world shares the


responsibility—should endeavour immediately to find new homes for all displaced persons, irrespective of creed or nationality.
The expert delegations proposed that our two Governments should adopt the following means of making an immediate contribution to the solution of this problem. First, they proposed that our two Governments should seek to create conditions favourable to the resettlement of a substantial number of displaced persons in Europe itself, since it is recognised that the overwhelming majority will continue to live in Europe. In the British and American zones of Germany and Austria, our two Governments are doing their utmost to assist resettlement and to eradicate anti-Semitism. In Italy and the ex-enemy satellite States, the authorities will be required by the Peace Treaties to secure to all persons under their jurisdiction human rights and the fundamental freedoms. As regards the countries in Europe, the expert delegations recommended that our Governments should support the efforts of the United Nations to ensure the protection of those rights and freedoms. Further, by assisting to reestablish political and economic stability in Europe, we should continue to contribute to the restoration of those basic conditions which will make possible the reintegration in Europe of a substantial number of displaced persons, including Jews.
But, when all that is possible has been done in Europe, it is clear that new homes must be found overseas for many whose ties with their former communities have been irreparably broken. The expert delegations outlined the following measures—some of which are already in train—designed to promote this movement. First, we should continue to press for the establishment of an International Refugee Organisation designed to deal effectively with the problem of refugees and displaced persons as a whole. Secondly, we should give strong support at the forthcoming General Assembly of the United Nations to an appeal calling upon all Member Governments to receive in territories under their control a proportion of the displaced persons in Europe, including Jews. I should here interpolate that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have already given

a lead in this matter by accepting a commitment to promote the resettlement of about 235,000 Polish troops and civilians and their dependants. This is, of course, in addition to refugees admitted during the period of Nazi persecution, of whom some 70,000 Jews remain in the United Kingdom. His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions have been informed of the action being taken by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, and they will, we hope, support the appeal to Member Governments of the United Nations, an appeal which will include an invitation to receive a number of displaced persons in the territories under their control. I also understand that the United States, where 275,000 refugees, including 180,000 Jews have permanently resettled in the same period, are now resuming normal immigration and expect to receive some 53,000 immigrants each year from the European, countries from which the displaced persons are drawn. Finally, pending the establishment of an International Refugee Organisation, we shall, in cooperation with the Government of the United States, continue to promote the resettlement of refugees and displaced persons through the agency of the Inter-Governmental Committee on Refugees. Plans are in preparation, in cooperation with the nations concerned, for resettling large numbers of displaced persons in Brazil and other South American countries.
It will thus be seen from what I have said that the broader aspects of the refugee and displaced persons problem have not been overlooked, nor the restoration of conditions in Europe permitting the re-integration there of as many displaced persons, including Jews, as may wish to remain. The ability and talent of Jews and others is needed for the difficult tasks of reconstruction that lie ahead. At the same time, we are taking urgent and practical steps to ensure that other countries as well as Palestine will contribute to the resettlement of those displaced persons, including Jews, who must look elsewhere than to Europe for their permanent homes.
In formulating a new policy for Palestine, the expert delegations accepted as a basis the principles laid down in the third recommendation of the Anglo-American Committee, that Palestine as a whole can be neither a Jewish nor an Arab State, that neither of the two communities in Palestine should dominate the other, and


that the form of Government should be such as to safeguard the interests in the Holy Land of both Christendom and the Moslem and Jewish faiths.
The expert delegations argue as follows. The political aspirations of the two communities in Palestine are irreconcilable. The conflict which these aspirations have provoked is so bitter, that there is little hope of securing within any reasonable period that measure of cooperation between Arab and Jew which would make possible the establishment in Palestine of a unitary system of Government, consistent with these basic principles, in which each people played its part. The only chance of peace, and of immediate advance towards self-governing institutions, appears to lie in so framing the constitution of the country as to give to each the greatest practicable measure of power to manage its own affairs. The experts believe that, in present circumstances, this can best be secured by the establishment of Arab and Jewish Provinces, which will enjoy a large measure of autonomy under a central Government.
It is their proposal that, for this purpose, Palestine shall be divided into four areas, an Arab Province, a Jewish Province, a District of Jerusalem and a District of Negeb. The Jewish Province would include the great bulk of the land on which Jews have already settled and a considerable area between and around the settlements. The Jerusalem District would include Jerusalem, Bethlehem and their immediate environs. The Negeb District would consist of the uninhabited triangle of waste land in the South of Palestine beyond the present limits of cultivation. The Arab Province would include the remainder of Palestine; it would be almost wholly Arab in respect both of land and of population. The provincial boundaries would be purely administrative boundaries, defining the area within which a local legislature would be empowered to legislate on certain subjects and a local executive to administer its laws. They would have no significance as regards defence, Customs or communications, but, in order to give finality, the boundaries, once fixed, would not be susceptible of change except by agreement between the two Provinces. A provision to this effect would be embodied in any trusteeship agreement, and in the instrument bringing the plan into operation.
The provincial governments would have power of legislation and administration within their areas with regard to a wide range of subjects of primarily provincial concern. They would also have power to limit the number and determine the qualifications of persons who may take up permanent residence in their territories after the introduction of the plan. The provincial governments would be required by the instrument of government which establishes the fundamental law to provide for the guarantee of civil rights and equality before the law of all residents, and for the freedom of interterritorial transit, trade and commerce. The provincial governments would have the necessary power to raise money for the purpose of carrying out their functions.
There would be reserved to the Central Government exclusive authority as to defence, foreign relations, Customs and Excise. In addition, there would be reserved initially to the Central Government exclusive authority as to the administration of law and order, including the police and courts, and a limited number of subjects of all-Palestine importance. The Central Government would have all powers not expressly granted to the provinces by the instrument of Government. An elected Legislative Chamber would be established in each Province. An executive, consisting of a chief Minister and a Council of Ministers, would be appointed in each Province by the High Commissioner from among the members of the Legislative Chamber after consultation with its leaders. Bills passed by the Legislative Chambers would require the assent of the High Commissioner. This, however, would not be withheld unless the Bill is inconsistent with the instrument of Government, whose provisions would afford safeguards for the peace of Palestine and for the rights of minorities.
It would also be necessary to reserve to the High Commissioner an emergency power to intervene if a provincial government fails to perform, or exceeds, its proper functions. The executive and legislative functions of the Central Government would initially be exercised by the High Commissioner, assisted by a nominated Executive Council. Certain of the departments of the Central Government would be headed, as soon as the High Commissioner deems practical, by Palestinians. The High Commissioner would


establish a Development Planning Board and a Tariff Board composed of representatives of the Central Government and of each province. In the Jerusalem District, a council would be established with powers similar to those of a municipal council. The majority of its members would be elected, but certain members would be nominated by the High Commissioner. The Negeb District would be administered, for the time being, by the Central Government.
This plan for provincial autonomy would greatly simplify the problem of Jewish immigration into Palestine. Though final control over immigration would continue to rest with the Central Government, this control would be exercised on the basis of recommendations made by the provincial governments. So long as the economic absorptive capacity of the province was not exceeded, the Central Government would authorise the immigration desired by the provincial government. It would have no power to authorise immigration in excess of any limitations proposed by the provincial governments. Thus, though the Government of the Arab Province would have full power to exclude Jewish immigrants from its Province, the Jewish Province would, normally, be able to admit as many immigrants as its Government desires.
As part of this plan, the experts suggest that it would become possible to accept the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee for the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish immigrants into Palestine, and for continuing immigration thereafter. The experts prepared a plan for the movement of 100,000 Jews from Europe into the Jewish area of Palestine, and this plan could be set in motion as soon as it is decided to put into effect the scheme as a whole. The immigration certificates would be issued as rapidly as possible, and every effort would be made to complete the operation within 12 months of the date on which the immigration begins. The immigrants would be selected, primarily, from Jews in Germany, Austria and Italy, and priority would be given to those who have already spent some time in assembly centres in those countries and to others who, though no longer in those centres, were liberated in Germany and Austria. Within those groups, priority would be given to building craftsmen and agri-

cultural workers, young children, the infirm and the aged. The bulk of the 100,000 would be drawn from Germany, Austria and Italy; any certificates available for the Jews in other countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe would be issued only to orphan children. Shipment would proceed at the maximum rate consistent with the clearance of the transit camps in Palestine, in which the immigrants would be temporarily accommodated until they could be absorbed.
Under this plan, the United States Government would be asked to undertake sole responsibility for the sea transportation of those Jewish refugees, to whom I have referred, from Europe to Palestine. They would provide the ships and would defray the whole cost of sea transportation. They would also provide food for the immigrants for the first two months after their arrival in Palestine. The cost of transferring and settling this number of persons in Palestine would, of course, be considerable. The Jewish organisations have accepted the financial responsibility, and the experts saw no reason why the required finance should not be found from reparations, from contributions by world Jewry and from loans. The experts accepted the recommendations of the Anglo-American Committee that improvements of the economic and social conditions of the Arabs in Palestine were desirable. The programme which they suggested would include the provision of a health service comparable to that already available to the Jews, an expansion of educational facilities, the provision of cheap credit for the Arab cultivators, and other measures designed to increase the productivity of the land, the promotion of the cooperative movement, the development of light industries and improvements in both rural and urban living conditions.
The expert delegations gave warning that, for some years, the implementation of these and other plans for the improvement of economic opportunities and living standards in Palestine would impose heavy capital costs not eligible for loans, and would constitute a severe strain on the finances of Palestine. The setting up of the provincial system would also entail a deficit in the budget of the Arab Province which would have to be met by a Central Government subvention. Further financial aid for Palestine would be required if the plan, as a whole, is to be


carried out. To meet this situation, the experts suggested that the United States should be asked to make a substantial grant to the Government of Palestine, to be used principally for financing Arab development projects not suitable for self-liquidating loans, and for assisting in the meeting of extraordinary expenditure during the transitional period, while this country should be asked to take ultimate responsibility for meeting Palestine's annual budgetary deficit up to the time when increased revenues made this unnecessary.
The experts believed that the need for economic development in Palestine should be considered against the background of the Middle East as a whole. They understood that the governments represented in the Arab League were now examining the possibilities of economic development in their countries, and they, therefore, suggested that if any of those States found difficulty in obtaining international loans for this purpose, the United States should authorise large scale development loans. These loans would be made through an appropriate agency for the development of the Middle East region, including Palestine. Most large scale development from which Palestine could benefit should be undertaken in cooperation, at least, with Transjordan, and probably with Syria and Lebanon. The experts proposed that, subject to the consent of the Government of Transjordan, the common water resources of both Palestine and Transjordan should be surveyed as soon as possible by consulting engineers acting under Government auspices.
I have now completed my outline of the recommendations of the expert delegations. His Majesty's Government, believing that these recommendations represent the best line of advance towards a solution of the problem, informed the United States Government of their willingness to accept them as the basis for negotiation. We had hoped before the Debate to receive from President Truman his acceptance, but we understand that he has decided, in view of the complexity of the matter, to discuss it in detail with the United States expert delegation who are returning to Washington for the purpose. The President is thus giving further consideration to the matter, and we hope to hear again from him in due course.
Meanwhile, however, the situation in Palestine will brook no delay. We are inviting the representatives of the Jews and Arabs to meet us for discussion of these problems, and we hope that we shall be able to bring before them as a basis for negotiation the plan recommended by the expert delegations. If it is found acceptable, our intention would be that it should be embodied in a trusteeship agreement for Palestine. But I should make it clear that we mean to go ahead with discussion with Arabs and Jews of a constitutional scheme on these lines. We believe that it offers many advantages to both communities in Palestine.
The Jews will be free to exercise a large measure of control over immigration into their own Province, and to forward there the development of the Jewish National1 Home. The Land Transfer Regulations will be repealed. It will be open to the Government of the Arab Province to permit or to refuse permission to Jews to purchase land there, but the area of the Jewish Province will be larger than that in which Jews are free to buy land at present. The Arabs will gain, in that the great majority of them will be freed once and for all from any fear of Jewish domination. The citizens of the Arab Province will achieve at once a large measure of autonomy, and powerful safeguards will be provided to protect the rights of the Arab minority left in the Jewish Province. To both communities the plan offers a prospect of development, of which there would be little hope in a unitary Palestine.
In the long term, the plan leaves the way open for peaceful progress and constitutional development either towards partition, or towards federal unity. The association of representatives of the two Provinces in the administration of central subjects, may lead ultimately to a fully developed federal constitution. On the other hand, if the centrifugal forces prove too strong, the way is open towards partition. Our proposals do not prejudge this issue either way. We believe that this plan provides as fair and reasonable a compromise between the claims of Arab and Jew as it is possible to devise, and that it offers the best prospect of reconciling the conflicting interests of the two communities. This, however, must be made clear. The full implementation of the experts' plan as a whole depends on United States cooperation. I hope that


that will be forthcoming. If not, we shall have to reconsider the position, particularly as regards the economic and financial implications, and this is bound to affect the tempo and extent of immigration and development.
These, then, are our proposals. I ask the indulgence of the House for the fact that, in the circumstances, I have had to stick closely to my notes in making this speech, because a great deal of it was necessarily based upon the recommendations of the expert delegations, and I was exceedingly anxious to be accurate in what I said. It would, in any event, be impracticable to enter, at this stage, into greater detail regarding proposals which it is intended shall form the basis of discussion with representatives of the Arabs and Jews whom we have promised an opportunity for consultation before a final decision is reached.
I commend these proposals to the House, and I would urge upon both communities in the Holy Land to give them their most earnest consideration. While our consultations are proceeding, I would appeal to all men of good will on either side, to cooperate with the Government in suppressing terrorism and in bringing to justice those responsible for crimes of violence. Let nothing be said or done that will render it more difficult to reach a final settlement. The world is weary of this senseless strife of Jew and Arab, and sickened by its barbarous incidents. It calls upon them to end a sordid chapter of history, and join with the civilised nations in building the foundations of a nobler and happier world. Their friends everywhere will anxiously await their verdict. Mere negation, however, does no good and would be particularly dangerous and regrettable in a combustible situation of the kind with which we are dealing. There is a responsibility on both Jews and Arabs to be willing to sit down as practical people to discuss, to negotiate and to talk with a view to reaching a practicable solution, with the expedition and with the sense of urgency which this grave problem demands.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: First let me join with the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council in the expression of regret at the absence of the Foreign Secretary. We

are, indeed, sorry that he is unable to take part in a Debate which must be of great importance to him, because in the last few months he has, of course, taken in this affair of Palestine a larger part than has sometimes been taken in the past by Foreign Secretaries. I am in entire agreement with that action. I myself, have always held that as the situation is today, with the immense international reactions which follow from every move in Palestine, the administration in Palestine is really more a matter for the Foreign Secretary than for the Colonial Secretary. I must admit that when I formulated those proposals, I had in view happier days when fairly frequent opportunities were given to the Foreign Secretary to visit England—a time when the Foreign Office meant something more to the Foreign Secretary than a place where he could have a hasty bath, and, of course, now, a scanty breakfast between one conference in one capital and another conference in another capital, the personnel of both being the same. Still, we do not give up hope that happier days may return, and I am still not without hope that, after, of course, a period of training and rehabilitation, we shall be able, some day, to resettle the new nomads of the 20th century.
If I started with condolence with the Government, I want to continue with criticism. I think that in this matter this House has been treated in a rather extraordinary way. I say "this House" and not the Opposition, because I think it is a matter in which hon. Members on all sides are interested. For many months now, since the end of April, many hon. Members have desired a Debate upon this subject. We have postponed that Debate at the desire of the Government, in order not to embarrass them. That, I think, must have convinced them that the desire of the House when it came to debate the matter was, not to debate it in a hostile, controversial spirit, but to enable hon. Members on all sides who take differing views, which do not differ necessarily according to the side of the House on which they sit, to give some expression to their feelings about the problem and its solution. It has been obvious from the Press in the last ten days that there has been in existence this agreement, document, or whatever it is called, of this committee of experts to which the Lord


President has referred. Almost every day, in one or other of the journals, here, in America or in Jerusalem, there have been references to the document and to its contents. Of course, we do not know how they came there. If they came there by way of leaks, all I can say is that this has been the father and mother of a leak; it has leaked in such quantities, and so simultaneously all over the globe, that it must hold an all-time record. If it is merely journalistic anticipation, then I would say, in view of what the Lord President has told us today, that anticipation has been so intelligent as almost to make one believe it has also been inspired —and those things do happen; even Governments which abuse the Press in public sometimes use the Press in private.

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may be speaking purely in a humorous sense. However, if he is seriously suggesting that His Majesty's Government have deliberately inspired Press anticipations of what I was going to say, or of the nature of the report, that would be a serious accusation and might involve us in difficulties with the United States. I do not want to get cross about it; I only wish to say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is quite untrue, and I ask him to accept my assurance on that.

Mr. Stanley: I certainly accept the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman. In turn, perhaps he would allow me to say, that being so, that it is necessary for him to inquire into the source of this leak, and how it happens that, for the last week, the Press has had what has proved to be such accurate knowledge of exactly what is in the document. My point is this. I cannot see why it would not have been possible to have issued to this House in the form of a White Paper the substance of what the Lord President has told us today. He has given us a very full and very detailed statement. However, it is one which is almost impossible for anybody immediately to discuss and to dissect with any value. Although it has been an interesting statement, it is not a novel one. I cannot see that there is any secret in it which could not have been divulged last week. Naturally, we would not have expected the right hon. Gentleman to say before the Debate whether His Majesty's Government or the American Government agreed. But if we could have had the substance of this report before, it would have

enabled us, I am sure, to discuss the matter with much greater intelligence, and, I think, with much greater assistance to the Government as well. As it is, we must all try to do our best to deal with a complicated proposal which we have not previously had the opportunity of seeing. Therefore, we can only deal with it on rather broad lines, and as a matter of personal impressions.
Before I come to a discussion of the Government's plan, I would like to say a few words upon some of the other matters which were raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He dealt first with the problem of the resettlement of Jews and other displaced persons elsewhere than in Palestine. Of course, we welcome any attempts which can be made in that way. We do not believe either that Palestine is the only destination which might provide a happy home for Jews. We hope with the right hon. Gentleman that a large number of Jews will, in fact, decide, under better conditions, to make their homes still in the countries in which they have resided, because we feel that during a period of European reconstruction, the complete abandonment of Europe by Jewry, the complete exodus of the Jewish race from the Continent, could only have upon that reconstruction a damaging effect. They have much to contribute in the task which lies before Europe.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Would the right hon. Gentleman compel them to stay there?

Mr. Stanley: No, but I think the whole House would feel it a matter of regret if, in fact, every Jew felt that there was no future life for him in Europe. I have not had an opportunity of studying the actual proposals that have been made. At first sight they do not appear very novel, with one exception, which it might be possible perhaps for the right hon. Gentleman or somebody else to expand later in the Debate, namely, the negotiation for extensive settlement in Brazil and South America; that, indeed, would be a new development, and might be a very valuable one. The other point to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the letter of General Barker. In view of the fact that, as he states, it is a military matter in which the C.I.G.S. is now concerned, I want to say little about it, except this. It does not require much imagination to realise the strain under which our


troops in Palestine have been in the last few months, the strain under which officers are who have seen their men murdered, under which people are who have seen their friends, their subordinates and their co-workers killed in a brutal manner. It is easy enough for us, sitting here in comfort and security, to criticise language which we ourselves would certainly never use, and to forget that the conditions under which it was used may not have been quite the same. Although in those circumstances, in a military officer, nothing, no amount of strain, could excuse an irresponsible action, strain of that kind may well be held to excuse a certain bitterness of words.
I now wish to say a few words about the question of law and order in Palestine. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, whatever is the long-term policy, whatever the long-term solution—if there is one—it will have to depend eventually upon the growth of confidence between the two communities. It is impossible that that confidence should ever begin, or should ever grow, if it is known that either one or both of the communities has, not only the will, but also the means to seek a solution in its own favour by force and not by argument. Unfortunately, for the last four years we have seen in Palestine a steady deterioration in the security position. I have seen it myself, during my term of office, pass from the lull which there was when I first came in, to isolated action on the part of the Stern gang, from that to bigger scale action by the Irgun Zvai Leumi, at first under conditions which were carefully arranged to prevent the loss of life, and then I have seen that limitation abandoned and life as well as property become exposed to danger. All that time the Hagana and the Jewish Agency who control them not only stood aside but condemned those outrages by dissident bodies and, as the Lord President says, after the murder of Lord Moyne cooperated with the Government.
Unfortunately, it is clear that since those days the position has changed. When we last debated this matter on the Adjournment, the Prime Minister, speaking for the Government, said that he would produce in a White Paper evidence that would implicate both the Jewish Agency and the Hagana in responsibility for those outrages, and would show that

they had cooperated with the other dissident bodies which they had condemned before. Having seen the White Paper, I regret to have to say that I find that the Government's charge is proved. I say I regret it because it is a matter of great regret that a policy of violence, which before was followed merely by a small and dissident minority, should have received the approval of a body such as the Jewish Agency, which represents so very much in the whole Jewish community in Palestine. I feel that the incident at the end of October, and the exchange of telegrams in connection with that incident which are published in the White Paper, show quite clearly that a definite planned outrage was undertaken by members of the Jewish Agency, and that in that outrage they were acting in the closest cooperation with the Irgun Zvai Leumi and with the Stern group.
There is no allegation, and I do not believe that any hon. Member will allege, that those telegrams have been faked by His Majesty's Government. If they are not faked, if they are genuine, as all of us believe them to be, published as they are on the responsibility of the Government, to my mind they can bear no other meaning than that which the Government have attributed to them. In that light, I certainly do not question the action the Government have taken, and have had to take, to restore the position, to maintain their authority and to stop, if possible, the murderous attacks upon our own troops. In fact, the question I would ask them would be a different one, namely, why did they not act earlier, because it is the evidence in the White Paper with reference to October and November of last year which to me is the conclusive part of the evidence? The various incidents in connection with the radio later on in the year, though they may confirm the conclusion, add very little to it, and I should have been as convinced by the earlier evidence as I am convinced today by the whole Paper, of the complicity of the Agency and the need for action.
If this White Paper has justified action in July, the early part of the evidence contained in it would have justified action last December, and who can say that action taken last December might not have been more efficacious than action taken today, might not have avoided some


of the incidents that have occurred, and, by bringing home to the Agency in Palestine, at an earlier date, the horror with which the whole world would receive the news of these outrages, and of their implication in them, might it not have prevented them from being so deeply committed as they have become to this policy of violence? But I echo the appeal made by the Lord President of the Council for the cooperation, even now, after all that has passed, of the whole Jewish community both in Palestine and in the world at large, in ending atrocities such as these, which cannot do any good to their cause but which can only alienate the sympathy which up to now has been extended to them from all parts of the world.
I myself believe that the time for merely verbal denunciations of these outrages is past, even if they are wholehearted denunciations, and they are not always wholehearted. On Monday I came across in the "Daily Telegraph" a report of a meeting presided over, I think, by an hon. Member of this House, which had been called to denounce these crimes, and one of the speakers at that meeting was a Mr. Locker, a member of the Executive of the Jewish Agency in this country, or certainly a man who holds a responsible position. These were some of his words:
We abhor crime, but non-Jews and the British people the British Socialist Government, should ask themselves, 'Is not the sin of these misguided criminals also on us?'.

Hon. Members: On whom?

Mr. Stanley: On us, including this present Government—"Is not the sin of these people also on us?" I am a critic of the Government, and I shall have something to say later about their handling of this situation in the last 12 months, but to suggest that, say, the Foreign Secretary or the Colonial Secretary share the sin of the criminals who placed the bombs in the King David Hotel is, to my mind, monstrous. And what effect can such statements have on the people for whom they were presumably intended? The object of that meeting was to express the horror and abhorrence of the Jews of this country at the action taken by their more violent compatriots in Palestine, but when those compatriots read a speech of that kind, do they read into it condemnation or do they read into it condonation? I hope that

we shall have not only wholehearted denunciation by the whole community of the outrages, which they must regret, but that we shall also have real and definite cooperation in bringing to book the participants in this particular culminating outrage, and thereby have afforded to us a proof that the Jewish community, as a whole, reject those methods, and will have nothing to do with the criminals.
I should like now to turn from the question of law and order, important though it is, to the question of policy. If all of us agree, as I think we do, that the re-establishment of Government authority is the necessary preliminary to any solution, I think we shall all agree that the re-establishment of authority and the suppression of violence, however successful, do not in themselves provide any permanent solution for the problem. They will, course, secure an interlude of peace, but violence of that kind will always return, unless statesmanship can point to some hope for the future in which both communities in Palestine can believe.
Today, for the first time for 12 months, we have some idea of the Government's long-term policy in Palestine. Twelve months has been a long time to wait. Who would have believed, after hearing some of the declarations given during the Election, that we should have to wait 12 months for a declaration of policy? Who would have thought that the world would have to wait 12 months. Anyone reading those declarations would have been justified in believing that they were made by people who had made up their minds, who knew what they were going to do if, as a result of those declarations, they were returned to power, and who were in a position immediately to announce their decision. The fact that they were made by right hon. Gentlemen who were not in Opposition but in the Government, who must have been presumed to know the difficulties and reactions, and who must have been presumed to have discounted them in advance, must have strengthened the belief that the people who made those pledges in June, 1945, would be in a position to announce a policy earlier than July, 1946.
Now, of course, having to speak immediately after the announcement of this policy, I am, as I think other hon. Members will be, in some difficulty. I confess I had expected that we should spend most


of our time discussing the Report of the Anglo-American Palestine Committee. But, as I understand from the Lord President's statement today, that Report is dead, although, it is only fair to say, it has been buried with the very highest honours. The Committee were 12 very distinguished people, people who had a great many responsibilities of their own, and a great deal of valuable work to do. They were, however, called by the two Governments to this service and they came, they saw— and it appears now that they have vanished. I have my own opinion upon their Report, and I propose to deal with that later; but I do feel that the treatment to which this Committee has been subjected—in fact, the whole history of its appointment and the reception of its Report—is rather extraordinary.
The solution which the right hon. Gentleman has read out to us now was in the Colonial Office last autumn. The discussion of these experts could have started last September. We could have got as far as we are today last November; and the policy, which we can only hope now will be implemented in the next two or three months, might have been in force at the end of the year. Instead of that, everything has been at a standstill for a Report of a Committee, which, as soon as it is received, is abandoned. There is in the Committee's whole report only one definite statement without any reservation, provision or condition, and that is the condemnation of partition. I do not know— perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell us—whether the particular scheme which is the basis of the Lord President's statement today was submitted to that Committee in evidence, and forms the basis of the rejection. It does really seem that the result of the self-sacrificing labours of those gentlemen has merely been to postpone a solution for a number of months, at a time when a decision is imperatively urgent. And then, when the solution is arrived at, it is an entirely different one.

Mr. S. N. Evans: Surely, it was desirable to get the Americans associated with these proposals?

Mr. Stanley: I could not be more agreed; and I am wholeheartedly in sympathy with the work the right hon. Gentleman and his friends have been doing since the Committee reported to

get the Americans to agree to a wholly different set of proposals. But the point I am making is that these proposals, to which we are listening now, were not the proposals of the Anglo-American Committee, and in fact, were rejected by them. I am glad that the Government have taken that decision. I did not think that the proposals of the Committee did, in fact, offer any permanent solution to the Palestine problem. Their Report, of course, was in the nature of a compromise. That, it was bound to be. I have no complaint of that, because any solution in Palestine must be in the nature of a compromise. But, frankly, it struck me as not a very good compromise, a compromise in which one side got all the action and the other side just got the words.
The main fundamentals of the Report are the entry of 100,000 Jews immediately into Palestine, and a declaration that neither Jew nor Arab is to dominate the State. Well, of course, if one has to choose between the two, there is considerably more value in the act of the admission of 100,000 Jews which, once done, cannot ever be repealed, than in a mere statement that a certain situation may never be allowed—a statement which may, in time, be altered, as similar statements about Palestine have been altered in the past. The result has been that the Arabs have seemed to detect in the Committee's Report a complete acceptance of the Jewish case, whereas, on the other hand, the Jews have seen in the words which are supposed to be, and should be, a reassurance to the Arabs, something which they need not accept, and have not accepted, but which they can wait to reverse when the time is more propitious. I did feel that the mere introduction of this Report would settle nothing; that it would, of course, produce a violent reaction immediately; and that violent Arab reaction would barely die away, before new demands would be made, and new violence created.
Nor, frankly, do I think we are any nearer a solution by going to the other end of the scale; by trying, instead of accepting the Report of the Anglo-American Committee, to go back to the full implementation of the White Paper. I know there are some who think that that is correct policy; I myself cannot agree. I agreed to the White Paper in 1939, but I—and I think many others would agree


with me—at that time had certain hopes, which have since been shown to be incapable of fulfilment. We thought that the White Paper might provide a period of cessation in immigration; and that, during that time, tempers might fall, accommodations might begin, and an experiment of government, which was also an integral part of the White Paper, might have some effect in bringing Jew and Arab together, and that, therefore, that provision, that there should be no further immigration without the acquiescence of the Arabs, was not an empty one but might, in time, be fruitful of good. No one can now believe that, at the present moment, those hopes have been fulfilled. It has been impossible, owing to circumstances, even to start on the experiment of self-government. Jews and Arabs are further apart, much further apart, than they were in 1939, and it is idle to believe that one can hope to look, according to the White Paper policy, 10 the acquiescence of the Arabs in Jewish immigration into Palestine.
That being so, I do not believe that this solution, either, will bring any permanent hope to that country. Can we really leave 600,000 Jews as a permanent minority in an Arab State? I do not believe anyone could contemplate doing that, and still be faithful to the pledges that we have given. Certainly, we could not contemplate doing that without bloodshed on a terrible scale. If that is not so, if immigration is to stop and the number is always to be fixed as it is now, and there is to be no Arab State in accordance with the Arab majority, what is the alternative before us? If this country has forever to rule Palestine as a sort of police State, and is able to hold out no hope to two progressive peoples—make no mistake that the Arabs today are becoming progressive as well—of ever really having any effective say in the government of the country in which they live, I do not believe that that is a prospect which this country can look forward to with any belief that we shall be able to carry it through to the end. If we cannot' carry it through to the end, nothing is worse than to start upon it, and then fail.
I and many others have, over the last two or three years, been forced to consider whether the dreams with which people started this great experiment in Palestine—it is now nearly 30 years ago

since the Balfour Declaration—may not have been proved incapable of attainment. The dream which everyone had— all the objective and neutral people—was of a Palestine in which Jew and Arab would settle down together, would be members together of a Palestinian State, where they would be able to rule themselves, and not desire to rule each other, and where the division between political parties and political thought would not be purely on racial and religious grounds, but on grounds of economic and social interest. For many years, in pursuit of these dreams, various solutions have been proposed for Palestine, and various actions have been taken. Every time the dream has proved further away from realisation than ever before. I wonder whether the time has not come to say that we are deluding ourselves if we really believe there is any prospect, in any period which politicians or statesmen can consider, of an outcome of that kind in Palestine. The Peel Commission warned us of it in their Report. They warned us of something else—a prophecy quite apart from the state of things as they found it then. They said:
The estranging force of conditions inside Palestine is growing year by year. The educational systems, Arab and Jewish, are schools of nationalism and they have only existed for a short time. Their full effect on the rising generations has yet to be felt.
That, I think, was a true prophecy. Year by year we have seen the nationalistic feeling growing. We have . seen this gulf widen, and I am forced back on the conviction that it is idle any longer to base our attempts to solve this problem on the belief that in any reasonable period of time these two people can ever come together in the way in which the English, Welsh and Scottish peoples have come together in this country, and themselves share the Government of a unitary State. For that reason, when I was at the Colonial Office, I gave a considerable amount of time to trying to work out some scheme of partition. All of us with any interest in this problem are familiar with the Peel Report, and we are familiar with the theoretical case for partition. No one pretends that partition is an ideal solution, but because it is not the ideal solution, it does not mean that it may not be the only solution.
The difficulties of partition are obvious. To take a small country, divide it, and


then set up no less than three governmental machines is uneconomic. It is wasteful, it is extravagant, and it leaves all kinds of common problems, such as communications, Customs, and so on, to difficult arrangement. Anyone can see at once the technical practical difficulties in the way of partition, but if you can solve these problems, then the advantages are very real. It gives both Jew and Arab one great advantage. To the Jews it gives an area in which they can have a life of their own, governed by their own people in the interest of their own people. It will give them control of immigration into their own State, limited in number only by their own decision as to the economic life which they can give to the people coming there. It is true that the State they would have would be smaller than;the State which they have desired in the past. I see that some leading Jewry spokesmen in America talked about this as bringing the Jews back into the ghetto, but that kind of exaggerated argument really defeats its own ends. It is a smaller State, but I think that the important future function of the Jews in Palestine is not agricultural but industrial. I know that the hon. Gentleman can go through all his usual contortions, but I am supported in that belief by the Report of the Anglo-American Committee and by the fact that 85 per cent. of the Jewish community in Palestine do, in fact, live in the towns. If it is to be, as I believe it is to be, an industrial economy, then the mere size of land does not matter nearly so much. It certainly does not matter nearly so much as the friendliness of the natural markets upon which their industry might have to depend.
For the Arab it offers one real advantage. The Arab territory in Palestine, if joined, as it might be, with Transjordania, would make a solid sovereign State. As such a sovereign State, it might well become part of a greater Arab federation in the future. They would have, within that State, complete power to prevent any further encroachment of the Jews, and no longer would they have to feel that the only barrier which stands between them and further Jewish immigration into their own area, is a Mandatory Power which may be subject to political pressure from outside. I have often been asked by those who support the Arab case, whether the

disadvantage is not this: that partition might secure two or three years of peace, but during that time the Jews would bring immigrants in large numbers into their own area and fill it to overflowing, and then immediately begin pressing for elbow room outside and the demand for living space would be heard once more.
My answer always has been that under partition there would be a fundamental difference. Such pressure in future would not be pressure between two communities, both subject to our authority—perfectly legitimate pressure upon the political authority—because in the new circumstances it would be pressure by one sovereign State upon another, and any encroachment would be an encroachment by one sovereign State upon the other. It would not be merely a matter for discussion in Parliament on the Colonial Office Vote, but would call into question not only the treaties under which we would naturally guarantee the frontiers, and the treaties with which any other great Power might be prepared to enter into as a guarantor, but would also call into play all the machinery of the United Nations. It would be a definite infringement of the sovereignty of one Power by another, an infringement which quite clearly might lead to war, and one, therefore, which the United Nations organisation would expect to deal with, and where their power would inevitably have to be given to the protection of the Arab State.
Everyone knows the history of the Peel Commission, no one better than the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. T. Reid). He was a member of the Woodhead Commission, whose report on the practical issues destroyed temporarily, at any rate, the policy of partition. I do not regard that as final. The Commission worked under certain difficulties in its terms of reference. They were limited as to security; they were limited as to financial stability—all things, I think, which need not have been inserted in the terms of reference, and without which a different conclusion might have been arrived at. All I need say is that during the Coalition Government, I, and some of my colleagues, worked out a plan on those lines, which I thought was practicable and which many of my colleagues thought was practicable, and it was accepted as practicable by many people who were authorities on Palestine. It would be for the


Government of the day to produce any detailed plan in support of this policy, but I am convinced that if everyone once came to the conclusion that there was no alternative to partition, and that it was the only policy to adopt, then, somehow or other, these practical conclusions would be found to work themselves out.
We have heard today the Government's scheme. As I understand it, it is not that form of partition which was recommended by the Peel Commission in Chapter 20 of the Report, but that form of partition which was rejected by the Peel Commission in Chapter 21 under the name of cantonisation, although it is now called federation. During my time, some work was done at the Colonial Office on a scheme of this kind as an alternative, in case the final definite scheme of partition, for some reason or other, proved unacceptable. I always regarded this scheme as a second best. It is, at any rate, some step towards cantonisation, towards giving some separate life to Jew and Arab, but it is far from going the whole way.

Mr. S. Silverman: I would like to ask a question, and if the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer it, I shall quite understand. Could he tell the House whether, in the scheme which he says he thought of when he was Colonial Secretary—the partition scheme—any power was reserved to a non-Arab, non-Jewish central Government?

Mr. Stanley: None at all. The Jewish part and the Arab part in conjunction, possibly, with another Arab country become sovereign States. There might be treaty rights between us as the administrators of the Jerusalem enclave; but they would both be sovereign States. We, as administrators of the Jerusalem enclave, would have treaty rights, but would not be responsible—

Mr. H. Morrison: I wonder why, when the right hon. Gentleman is accusing us of indecision and delay, he did not carry this through.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it was the unanimous decision that the Coalition Government expressed to this House and to both Jews and Arabs that nothing in this matter should be done until the end of the war. I see in this scheme of federation certain very obvious advantages over

the scheme of full partition. It removes a great many of the technical difficulties with regard to such things as Customs, communications and strategic necessities —many of the things in which division is extremely difficult, but, under this scheme, they are still kept together, and, therefore, those difficulties are avoided. Certainly, I for one, when I have had time to consider the scheme, shall hope to be convinced by it. To my mind it certainly goes some way towards recognising the keeping of two compartments. It presents certain obvious advantages in technical matters, but it has one serious disadvantage. It cannot give any sense of finality. It does not give sovereignty to these two States. It retains for the federal Government certain authority, which I have not yet had time to study. As I gather, on the whole, immigration would be in the hands of the two Provinces, but, in the last resort, the central authority might have to come in. The central authority would be responsible for law and order, although the provincial governments would be responsible for immigration, which might well be, and usually is, the cause of any breach of law and order.
I am not myself convinced, and I cannot at the moment see exactly how that division of authority is to work, and whether there is not a danger that we might appear to the world to be responsible for something over which we have no control. I hope that in any further consultations with the Americans, and with the Arabs and the Jews, it might be considered whether, if all minds are moving towards partition—all minds moving towards the abandonment of a unitary State—it might not be an advantage to take the bolder, rather than the more cautious, step; and whether, in fact, it would not be more in accordance with the facts of the problem and the desires of all those concerned to go straight to. some form of partition, rather than take-the intermediate step, which, as the right hon. Gentleman quite properly said, might well, in time, lead itself to the full partition.
As the right hon. Gentleman has told us, this policy still awaits the agreement of America. Until that is received, he can make no definite statement on behalf of His Majesty's Government. I think we all realise the immense importance of


getting American agreement upon a policy. I do not say upon any policy, or upon a policy which we ourselves would not feel was fair and just. But I, quite frankly, say that I am prepared to accept a policy which is not exactly the one which I should consider best, if the other enabled us to go forward, step by step and hand in hand, with America. Therefore, all of us on this side of the House must express the hope that we shall be able in the future to deal with this problem in agreement with America; and, above all, we must express the hope that whatever is necessary to enable these policies to go forward, will be done soon. I recognise the difficulties of international negotiations in which, quite rightly, the agreement of another Power is desired. But time has been going on, tempers have been rising, and the situation day by day has been growing tenser; and the solutions which are possible today may tomorrow or next week become impossible. Therefore, we hope that it will be possible for the Government before long to give a final declaration of policy in agreement with America, and to put before us a policy which will appeal both to us and to the world. Having done that, we trust they will be prepared to go forward with determination to put that policy into effect, and to end a situation which is bringing no happiness to the people of Palestine and is imposing a heavy burden of blood and treasure on the people of this country.

5.11 p.m.

Captain Delargy: I want to make reference to one point which is not usually raised in this House when Palestine is debated, probably because it is a subject that is rather disagreeable—the danger of a fresh outburst of anti-Semitism, not merely in Palestine among the Arabs but here and everywhere. It is a danger which does exist and is particularly acute after the recent explosion in Jerusalem. No good whatever can come from hiding the fact and pretending that the danger does not exist. However strongly and sincerely the Jewish leaders and people deplore and condemn the recent outrages in Palestine, nevertheless, there still remains in the minds of many people a suspicion, and more than a suspicion, that these outrages have some connection at least with the extremist

political attitude of some Jews here, and more particularly in America. Indeed, the very fact that these acts were committed by Jews makes them appear to some people even more shocking than if they had been committed by other people, simply because there does exist a latent and potential hostility to the Jews.
This is something which is not too often openly ventilated in this House, but I think it ought to be. It is a fact which must be faced, and it must be faced, I think, first of all, and principally, by the Jews themselves. They can do more themselves in the long run to combat this danger than anyone else. They ought, I think, to insist that their leaders in Jerusalem and in Palestine generally should dissociate themselves openly and entirely from the terrorist groups, which are carrying out this stupid and wicked policy, and openly declare that they are not in favour of a solution by violence. They ought to impress upon their leaders in Palestine that the ultimate result of these activities, even if they were to succeed in Palestine and achieve the very objects which the Jews there desire—and I do not for one moment believe that they will—could be nothing but bad for the Jews everywhere.
We ourselves, particularly in this House, must also in the face of the growing danger of anti-Semitism remind ourselves of our own responsibility. We must refuse to allow our decision to be influenced, even indirectly, by the vulgar clamour of those people, who preach aloud or, worse still, who whisper this ancient and damnable creed of racial and religious hatred. We must take care to remind ourselves that the recent happenings in Palestine, although they have certainly not helped to solve the problem, have, nevertheless, not fundamentally altered it. A solution which may have been correct just a month ago is still no less correct and just now. The problem has not altered. What has altered is merely that there is a fresh urgency to find a solution. That is why I, and no doubt everyone else in this House, is delighted that the Government have come forward with a solution, and Heaven knows, the Government have kept us waiting long enough for it. I see no reason why the plan which has now been put forward, which has nothing fearful, novel or revolutionary about it, could not


have been submitted to this House six months ago. At any rate, we have some sort of solution to work upon and I hope the solution will be tried very speedily.
I welcome it, but I do not feel that it is ideal chiefly because, as the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) said, there is no element of finality about it. However, perhaps that is just as well at the moment. We are faced with a position in which we must give an urgent and speedy answer, and in that case it is just as well that the solution put forward has in it nothing of absolute finality. But, as the Lord President of the Council pointed out, it can at least serve as a basis for a future final solution, a final solution which must be found. He has stated that it can lead either to partition of the country or to some form of federal unity. When he speaks of partition, I presume that he means complete partition. I believe that he means the existence of two States, and only two, with no central Government, and one completely independent of the other. I hope that such a solution will never be adopted. I do not agree that partition can solve anything. As a matter of fact, such a solution would really create new problems. There would be again a new frontier problem and a new minority problem. There must obviously be a minority problem unless these two States, set up as a result of partition, are hermetically sealed. This Government recently decided finally and wisely against partition in India. I hope, whatever happens in the meantime, that that policy in India will be most strictly adhered to. Similarly here the Government should resist and should discourage other people from thinking about a solution for Palestine by partition. We certainly in this House have no excuse whatsoever for ignoring the dangers of the evil of partition—we who have on our own doorstep and under our very eyes the sad and sorry result of the bitter experiment of partition in Ireland. No man in his sane senses would like to see a Stormont erected on the hills outside Jerusalem.
I think, on the other hand, that federal unity, to which the Lord President has made reference, is considerably more attractive, more just in the long run and more sensible. It is a system which has worked in most places; in fact, in every place where it has been tried. It has not

always been tried in the same manner, but the underlying principle can be found in many parts of the world. It has worked well in Switzerland, for instance, and in the United States. Speaking of the United States, it makes one rather shocked to find that certain American publicists have spoken against federal unity for Palestine and are in favour of partition when one remembers that the Americans themselves, when faced with a similar difficulty in their own country, thought it worth while to fight a long and bitter civil war precisely in order to avoid American partition, and to create a government of federal unity. This same system of federal unity will eventually work in India. There is no reason on earth why it could not work now smoothly and easily in Ireland. I believe that it is, ultimately, the solution which will be found for Palestine. Meantime, I hope that the plans which the Lord President announced to the House today will be negotiated with the utmost speed. We cannot afford to lose a single moment.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Clement Davies: Had I not been told that the speech we have just listened to was a maiden speech I should not have known it, because the hon. and gallant Member for Platting (Captain Delargy) spoke with such ease, freedom, and conviction that I am sure many of us thought that he had often taken part in our Debates. May I most sincerely offer to him my warmest congratulations, and hope that he will not remain silent for so long again without joining in our discussions? May I also express my regret at the absence of the Foreign Secretary, who has taken such a very keen interest in Palestine? He has had a very strenuous time over a long period of years, first as the Minister of Labour and National Service, and as a member of the War Cabinet, and then in the responsible office of Foreign Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman has probably had a more difficult task than any other Foreign Secretary has had for a long time. We wish him a speedy return to health, and will want to welcome him back once more into this Chamber.
We are meeting today at a sad and most depressing moment. Not only have we been deeply shocked by the murders, the inexcusable acts of terrorism, which


have been committed recently in Palestine, but there is at this moment a strained feeling between the people of this country and the great Jewish race, which is an even sadder thought. I wish all Jewish people would recall how much the British Government and the British people have endeavoured to assist them over the generations. We not only opened our shores to them, but opened every office to them. I know of no other country where a member of the Jewish race became the occupier of our most cherished position—Prime Minister. Jews have occupied the highest positions in law and on the Bench, and we are under a deep debt of gratitude to them for all they have done in art, culture, and science, and for what they have contributed to the well-being of the world.
I, myself, probably have a closer sympathy with them, because I belong to a small and minority nation. In our younger days, in our close adherence to our Sunday schools, I expect that we people of Wales knew the history of the Jewish race better than we knew our own. So, there is naturally imbedded in us a deep debt of gratitude for the great part that they have played, not only in the philosophy, but also in the religion, of the world. It is, therefore, a sad moment for me that there should be any breach of the good understanding there has been between the Government and peoples of this country and the Jewish race. Nothing that anyone can say can in any way mitigate the horror of, or lessen the condemnation for, the acts that have been committed recently by young, maybe old, but at any rate thoroughly irresponsible members of the Jewish race. But, at the same time, without condoning those acts, one cannot but have regard to certain events which have happened. This country was the first to suggest that there should be a possibility of a Jewish return to their ancient home of Palestine. I, myself, have had no doubt whatever, ever since it was issued, of the meaning that I attached to the wording of the Balfour Declaration. We all know that those words were most carefully chosen. They appeared above the name of one of the most honoured statesmen that this country has ever had, a Prime Minister in his day, and a Foreign Secretary under a coalition. It never occurred to me, at

any rate, that the word "home" could be applied to lodgings, I thought that it meant a place where the occupier was in charge—

Mr. S. Silverman: And with the key of the door.

Mr. Davies: I never thought that any other construction could be put upon it except the one which I have suggested. Moreover, there is not the slightest doubt that that was the construction that was put upon it when disputes arose, and the matter was again discussed in 1922. That is the interpretation which has been put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who is responsible for drafting the Declaration of 1922. A new hope was given to the Jewish people, a new hope of returning to the land with which they were so closely associated by their religion. With our help and assistance they have gone back until, today, they number over 600,000. They must also remember that we took upon ourselves the responsibility of protecting them, and that we did it when the United States of America was refusing to do it. She had the opportunity, and the request was made to her before we undertook to do it. We undertook to do if not only on our own behalf, but on behalf of all the United Nations which are at present in Paris to sign the Peace Treaty which is supposed to bring peace on earth.
We held the Mandate under international law, and the hope that we instilled in the Jews was a great hope. I have nothing but admiration for the way in which our people in Palestine, commissioners, civil servants, police and army, have carried out their difficult duties during the whole of the period. They have conducted themselves with tolerance, understanding, and patience. But the Governments of this country, from that time on, have not been without blame. Hope deferred certainly maketh the heart sick. There was comparative quiet until 1929, but then, unfortunately, outbreaks occurred from time to time, for which both the Jews and the Arabs were responsible.
Then we came to the period 1937, 1938 and 1939, to the Peel Commission and their Report. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Platting in that partition certainly does not appeal


to me. The hon. and gallant Member very rightly cited two bad instances of partition in America and in Ireland. As the Woodhead Commission promptly found out, partition, such as was suggested by the Peel Commission, was not possible. The suggestion that was put forward was one that really could not be carried out. What happened? There was the unilateral issue by the Government of this country of a White Paper which brought disappointment and disillusionment to Jews the world over. Unfortunately, I was unable to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on that occasion, but as far as I could, I registered my protest against that White Paper in the Lobby. I shall never forget the powerful speech made at that time by the right hon. Member for Woodford. I only wish that he had had the courage to come into the same Lobby with us to register his objection.
After that period of disappointment and disillusionment came the period of the war. The Members of the present Government—who at that time had not become the Government—in June, 1945, while we were still awaiting the decision, not only condemned the White Paper, but went further, and gave to the words of the Bal-four Declaration the definition that I myself have given—that "home" meant, eventually, control of affairs within that home, which meant a Jewish State. That was in June, 1945. The Government came into power a month later, and not a word was then said; now they say, "We are in power, and we propose to undertake the following measures with regard to Palestine."
If there is a minority feeling itself helpless at any time, losing its optimism, undoubtedly some of the hotheads will leave reason and resort to terrorism and underground movements. The hope of a minority is that the power of its own reasoning will succeed. Unfortunately, no hope came from the Government at that time. Every one of us welcomed, however, the effort they made to bring in America; we welcomed the fact that America came in, and that the Anglo-American Commission was formed, and set about its work. When that Commission reported, one expected that at any rate there would be a declaration somewhat similar to that which has been made today, on the lines that the Government of this country, for their part, would do

certain things; but unfortunately, all that was said was that the Government would consult with America and would do nothing until they had carried out those consultations—again deferring hope about what might happen.
There was, then, a speech which, to my mind, would have been better undelivered. The words that were used by the Foreign Secretary at the Bournemouth Conference were unworthy of the occasion and of the Foreign Secretary, and would have been better not uttered. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] They were insulting to the Jewish people, and it is not wise to insult anybody, still less a Jew. Never sneer at anybody. I was glad to hear the Lord President today, on behalf of the Government, dissociate the Government from a sneer that appeared in another communication. I have every sympathy with the people in Palestine who are at present responsible for the maintenance of law and order. One can well understand that they are deeply moved at the moment, but that does not justify anyone in using words which have only a sting and a sneer behind them. I am glad the Government have dissociated themselves from that.
There has been a vacillating policy for a great number of years. We are faced now with a new situation. I only wish that the Government had given us a longer opportunity of considering their proposals. I was amazed to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) say that these proposals were in the possession of, or actually in writing in, the Colonial Office as long ago as last autumn.

Mr. Stanley: I did not say exactly that. I said that this is no new scheme, and that there were papers on it in the Colonial Office last autumn.

Mr. Davies: Surely, if the Government were considering a scheme of this kind, the sooner they published it, the better for all concerned—Jews, Arabs, and the people in this country and in every country who are interested in these matters. We were presented this afternoon with a statement that was read by the Lord President of the Council. I do not complain in the slightest degree of the Lord President reading that statement—one sympathises very much with


him in being put in that position suddenly overnight—but a document which is to settle the fate of at least 600,000 Jews present now in Palestine, and 1,000,000 Arabs, is worthy of longer and quieter consideration than a rapid reading from the Government Front Bench. It puts each one of us under a disadvantage. What we want is peace in our time for all peoples. The Jews, for 2,000 years and in every country have suffered. The Jewish problem has been a problem for everyone and for every Government throughout those 2,000 years.
No people have ever suffered as these people have suffered, no people have had five-sixths of their number exterminated in five years as they have. It is time all the peoples and Governments of the world got together to put forward a solution which will put an end to all this misery, agony, and murder through which these people have passed during generation after generation. I do not know whether the solution which has been presented now will bring peace for the time being; I hope sincerely that it does, but at the best I should imagine that it would be only a very short-term policy. The best part of it that I heard was that the doors of Palestine are to be opened again and opened immediately to those Jews in Europe who have suffered so much and desire to go. One realises that there are the two problems concerning the suffering Jewish people who. still survive after all the horrors, and who are in Europe. I agree that as many of them as desire to remain in those countries where they were born and brought up should be encouraged to do so. They add to the proper wealth of the people amongst whom they are. I agree also that it might not be possible to accommodate them all under one State, but, at any rate, the hope that was given them in 1917 should not be closed down upon them in 1946. Those gates should be opened again. Whether the rest of the proposals will bring the benefits which have been suggested, I do not know; one needs further time and a further inquiry.
May I end with this comment? As I have said, this has been a problem which has worried every country over a long period. At one moment a country opens its gates and the next thing, in another generation, we hear that it has closed those gates and that there is a pogrom there

and murder and slaughter. The problem of Palestine is not a Jewish problem alone, it is not merely an Arab problem, and it certainly is not merely a British problem; it is a problem which concerns every country in the world, and I would ask this Government to bring the matter urgently before the United Nations now sitting. Let them put forward their suggestions for dealing with this, bringing in the Arab as well and saying to him, "If you will help us with regard to this, is there anything we, the rest of the world, can do to show our gratitude to you for coming in to help us to settle this long porblem that has lasted for two milleniums?" It is in that spirit that I would approach this matter, not reproaching anyone any further, but looking forward to a new future and a new hope for these amazing people wherever they may be.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. G. Lang: Neither in this Parliament nor in any other during the time that I have sat here, have I risen with a greater sense of anxiety and responsibility than I do now, to say something in this Debate. There are things which should be said and which must be said, but nobody would desire, I think, to add in any way to the difficulties of the present situation, either here in this House with His Majesty's Government, or in Palestine itself. We all sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House in being called upon, among his many other duties, to undertake the presentation of the Government's case in the opening of this Debate, and I think responsibility must not be laid upon him for the fact that it was difficult for us to grasp what was actually being proposed with that clear detail we would wish.
When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was speaking, I felt that he made a very important point which I should like to reiterate at once, when he spoke of the distinguished positions held and the very great services rendered to the community in which we live, by members of the Jewish race. I go a step further than that and say that it is those instances which make me realise how much the whole world has lost by not having, in the last centuries, the focal point of this culture in the Jewish National Home


itself, to be directed once again to the world as it was thousands of years ago. These outstanding cases are indicative of the general thing, and who can say what great genius and what powerful contributions to our civilisation have been cut short in the appalling carnage to which the hon. and learned Gentleman so feelingly and so eloquently referred.
The loss in numbers is awful to think about, the suffering is indescribable, and the loss to the culture of the world is, I believe, incalculable. The time has come when we in this House must say clearly not only that justice must be done to the Jews, but that these outrages must not again be possible. There has never been before, and there will never be again, quite such an opportunity for this House to rise to all its possibilities, and make it an actuality that at long last these suffering people return to their own home.
If I may say so with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, and to the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) who spoke with great care and moderation, I think the episode of General Barker's letter was passed over much too lightly. It will not do merely to talk about the intolerable conditions under which officers and men are acting. I agree about that, and greatly regret what has happened, and we all condemn with horror and emphasis the outrages that have taken place. I am certainly fully aware of the work which the British soldier has to do in all parts of the world. Even while I speak and plead for justice and the Jewish National Home I feel inclined to say at once, "For mercy's sake, let our own country's soldiers return from their trying task in Indonesia, Greece, and God knows where." I am not satisfied that there has always been the consideration for the British soldier that there ought to be, at home as well as abroad, but it will not do merely to say that letters such as General Barker's were written under great strain. If we are to have the vicious circle of intolerable circumstances producing wicked and criminal acts, and then those wicked and criminal acts are used as a sort of excuse, or reason for continuing the intolerable conditions, we shall never get anywhere at all. If a thing was right a month ago, the mere fact that some people have committed criminal acts between then and now does not make it

wrong now, and a very grave responsibility must lie upon those persons who have now had for a considerable time the unanimous report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and have not acted upon it. Are we again going to see the Report of the Commission which was set up brushed aside for another committee of experts? That is what I understand to be the position hurriedly outlined to this House this afternoon. It will not do, and I wish to register as emphatic a protest about that as I can.
May I now turn for one moment to this letter of General Barker's? It is one of the misfortunes of this Government— and I do not know whom to blame for it —that their beneficent activities and their general policy are very largely hamstrung outside this country by the maintenance of most reactionary people in key positions. How can it be expected that the Government can carry out their policy? This is a matter about which hon. Members on the other side of the House may be pleased, but, sitting on this side, I am not pleased about it, because I know that it exists. Take this letter of General Barker. I should like to know, and I hope an answer may be given to me presently, why it was sent. With great respect, I suggest that the letter is just vulgar anti-Semitism. I would like to know whether there is any connection between that attitude and the fact that the recent attack made upon Jerusalem took place upon the Jewish Sabbath day. Not a word was said about that by the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon in outlining the case, although I regard it as one of the most deplorable things that has happened in our time. I remember the horror with which I read of the entry of Mussolini's barbarians into Albania on a Good Friday. I am not a Roman Catholic, and I am not a Jew, but I thought that was quite a dreadful act. I had exactly the same feeling on that Sunday when I heard what had happened on the previous day.
I would like to know whether that had been deliberately arranged and whether the loathing and contempt which General Barker so freely expresses in his letter inspired it. He is certainly not a man with a judicial mind, if the reports of his letter are accurate, and he ought not to assume the position of judging the rights


of the general mass of the Jewish population of Palestine. Anything more immoderate and injudicious than this letter, I can scarcely conceive, and I earnestly hope that somebody will deal with it on behalf of the Government.
I hesitate to offer advice to members of the legal profession, but it seems to me that there is a fair field in that letter, and in this extraordinary White Paper, to which the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred. He seemed to accept it with childlike innocence, but it gives these queer telegrams of some nine months ago, as serious evidence justifying the wholesale arrest of some of the most moderate members of the Jewish community, and friends of this Government and of this country. Most of the friends and members in Palestine of the party to which I belong, are now in concentration camps while representatives of the party opposite are still free. I hope we shall hear a little more about this White Paper. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot, of course, say how much of this paper would be of the slightest value in a law court, but I know that in the long ago and happy years when I was a boy, I used to get a weekly publication called "Sexton Blake," and that it was a penny and was rather better written and almost as exciting as this "twopenny-plain" White Paper. I hope that we shall have something more than just a quick passing over of this justification for wholesale arrests.
It is time that the House was given some reason for the incarceration of the people who were protesting against violent activities. I hope we shall hear from the Minister who is to reply, something more about this letter of General Barker. I am not the only hon. Member who has received from men in the Army in Palestine letters of protest, or more often of plain inquiry, asking what the attitude is at home towards the Jews, because they have been told that there is now, definitely, a note of anti-Semitism in official propaganda. We had better face these facts. I should like to hear something more about them. I was thoroughly glad that my right hon. Friend dissociated the Government from this letter, but I hope we shall have something much stronger than that. I should like to know whether it was this gentleman's idea of loathing and contempt of

the Jews which led him to launch the attack recently on the Sabbath day and to order the arrest and transport of aged rabbis, as was done.
The people in Palestine were among many, at home and abroad, who were full of great new hope, after the General Election. They felt that now there had come into power a Government of freedom and humanity that would not carry on the stupid tradition of saying that what was done by higher authority must be right, and that there must never be any advance. I am sorry that, in some ways, those people have been greviously disappointed, and I hope that their questions will be answered. I hope that the matter will be dealt with adequately by later speakers who know exactly what the Jewish reaction to all these things is. Once again, if my poor words can have effect, I would re-emphasise what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has so eloquently stated. The sufferings that we have witnessed in our time, and which have been visited upon the Jewish people, are not only a crime that calls for justice, but they are apt to make us hardened to these things. Our capacity for tragedy is becoming blunted. Tragedy is becoming so usual, that it no longer makes us indignant and anxious to put things right.
I would like here to recall the fine phrase which was used by the Leader of the House in 1938, in an article he wrote in the newspaper "Forward." He said:
The words of one of our Socialist Zionist leaders are that the countries of the world are being divided into two categories: those which Jews are forbidden to enter, and those in which they find it impossible to live.
My right hon. Friend thus proved himself a true prophet, because that is the position today. I hope that the Government will use its tremendous opportunities to end once and for all that situation. I hope that we shall have some definite statement about the plan mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. That plan, or a substantial part of a fraternisation plan, was known to the Colonial Office a long time ago. The present position simply gives rise to suspicion and anxiety, and it is important that they should be immediately allayed. As one who is not a member of the Jewish race but who is just—God help me!— attempting to be a practising Christian, I believe that it is the Divine Will of Almighty God that Palestine should be


the national home of the Jewish people. The more I become convinced of that, the more ephemeral and evanescent the present situation seems. It will be a fatal thing if we attempt to put ourselves in the path of what I believe is a Divine Ordinance and Decree.
I know, and I regret it, that it is not now fashionable to talk of these things here. There was a time, as I have read with pleasure and longing, when matters of deep moral conviction could be voiced in this House, and when hon. Members were not afraid to quote Scripture to one another, in endeavouring to base their case upon the Scriptures. Fashions no doubt change, but fundamental things do not. Eternal values do not. I am certain that there will be no permanent peace in this world and no real prosperity for humanity until right things are done, and one of those right things is that the Jewish people shall, once again, return with songs to their own land and be domiciled there. For so long they have had no land of their own, and no rest for the soul of their people. They have borne for many of us the brunt of the misery, cruelty and infamy of man, and, despite that, so often in their tragic history they have had from the people they helped far more kicks than halfpence. Yet they have still come to their aid, as they did to ours during the last war, and as they would come to our aid again. Let nothing of the dreadful acts of violence which have taken place cause us to lose our sense of proportion. This is a great and fundamental matter. This is a crying aloud for real justice. There is an opportunity for the reassertion in this House, in this country and in the world of a great spiritual truth. I hope and pray that this Government will have the courage to take this decision, and to grant the Jewish people their rightful place.

6.1 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I find myself in a little difficulty in taking up the argument of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang). I must mention one or two things which he said. There is the matter of General Barker's letter. The hon. Gentleman seemed to consider it a fit moment in which to liken the procedure taken by British troops to that taken by Mussolini on a Good Friday in Albania. There is

one great thing the hon. Gentleman left out. Mussolini was committing an act of aggression, and these troops in Palestine were doing their level best to restore law and order. It seems to me rather astonishing that we should have anybody in this House even mentioning the conduct of British troops in the same light as the conduct of Mussolini—

Mr. Lang: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want to misrepresent what I said. The only point I made was about the date, saying that as I myself was tremendously moved with indignation when Mussolini's gang went in on a Good Friday, so I was equally moved when our troops moved on the Jewish Sabbath. It was the date I was referring to.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am quite prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's argument, except that I would add that it was highly unfortunate that he should use that particular example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The hon. Member mentioned General Barker's letter in some detail. It was with great horror that I heard the Lord President imply today that the Government were not entirely behind General Barker. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it is necessary for the C.I.G.S. to look into the matter before a final decision can be come to, then it seems to me that it is definitely an obligation on His Majesty's Government to back General Barker until the C.I.G.S. has made up his mind. Making a statement like that is merely going to undermine the authority of British troops in Palestine—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It was a manifestly disgraceful letter.

Mr. Mack: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman a question?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can only do so if the hon. and gallant Gentleman gives way.

Mr. Mack: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member, in order to make his own position clear, whether he condones the terms of the letter which was written by General Barker?

Major Legge-Bourke: The terms of the letter have not been put before the House—

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Has not the hon. Member read them? They have been put before the world.

Major Legge-Bourke: The Lord President of the Council has said that the C.I.G.S. will investigate it. Personally I am prepared to allow the C.I.G.S. to do that and then make up my mind rather than attempt to forestall the C.I.G.S. and make comments upon this. We all agree that British troops in Palestine are faced with a very terrible and grievous problem and it is our earnest desire that that problem should be solved as quickly as possible. But they have had to put up with some rather strange things. Not so long ago the Prime Minister told us about the terrible events at the King David. After he had made that statement, I saw fit to draw his attention to a report which had appeared in "The Jewish Standard" of 12th July of the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman). I apologised afterwards to the hon. Member for East Coventry for not having given him previous warning that I was going to do so. I would have done so if I had had the opportunity.
That statement is one of great importance because of the effect which it had. It is very important that we should look into the effect these things have had rather than the actual content of them. In the same way we should look on the effect of promises which have been made on the matter of Palestine rather than on the actual contents of them. It seems to me rather important that the hon. Member for East Coventry should know that in ''The Scotsman" of 8th July, the following appeared. It was a report from the "Daily Telegraph—Scotsman" correspondent, T. S. Steele, in Jerusalem on the Sunday before. It reports a statement made over the "Voice of Israel"—"Kol Israel." It finishes up by quoting the statement:
We cannot promise Mr. Crossman (Labour M P. for Coventry and a member of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry on Palestine), that we will use only passive resistance. We shall use all the means at our disposal at the time we choose.
When I raised that matter about the hon. Member for East Coventry, it seemed that he should be given an opportunity to explain it. [Interruption.] I am quite prepared to accept his word that he never made the statement which he was reported

as having made in the "Jewish Standard" of 12th July.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: What has that to do with this Debate?

Major Legge-Bourke: I shall be only too happy to give way if the hon. Member wishes.

Mr. Crossman: It might be shorter if I said that I never stated the thing, and I was preparing to make a personal statement, as the hon. Member well knows.

Major Legge-Bourke: I fully appreciate what the hon. Member has said. It is because he may perhaps desire to make a further explanation after he has heard what I have to say that I am saying this now—

Mr. Crossman: The hon. and gallant Member was fully aware before this Debate started that I intended to make a personal statement on this issue, and it is quite gratuitous for him to continue as if he did not know.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member will, I hope, have the good fortune to catch your eye later on, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. What is most important is that although I respect the honour and feelings of the hon. Member opposite, there is something which is far more important at the present time—that is, the reaction which anything that takes place in this House is going to have amongst British troops in Palestine. For that reason it is only right that I should draw attention to the effect of that statement, but I will not read it again. I am perfectly prepared to accept what the hon Member said about it. What I say is that if "Kol Israel" reacted to the hon. Gentleman's speech in the way they did—in fact they referred to him and said that they could not adopt passive resistance—it seems very hard for the hon. Member to explain how it comes about that there is that impression in Palestine if he did not make a speech recommending passive resistance. It surely is utterly wrong for any hon. Member of this House or, indeed, any British citizen, to go out and advise any people to adopt passive resistance against British troops.

Mr. Crossman: Hear, hear.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Major Legge-Bourke: The word "resistance" is what I object to; not so much whether it is passive or violent. Surely, no hon. Member, inside this House or outside, should issue any statement like that?
I do not want to go on with this, although I believe behind it will be seen that there is a constructive line, in that I earnestly pray and hope that British troops in Palestine will be able to restore law and order very soon. That, it seems to me, is the greatest tragedy at the moment; a tragedy which is storing up vast potentialities of danger in the future. I am thankful that today the Government intend to take action. What I cannot agree with is the solution which they seem to be considering. I listened with the greatest interest to what the Lord President had to say this afternoon, and I found myself in entire agreement with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley).

Mr. Weitzman: Then he must have been wrong.

Major Legge-Bourke: I deeply regret the fact that we have not had time to consider this in a White Paper before we debated it. We should have had the White Paper to study at great length and in detail, but we must take it as we find it. My own immediate reactions to the scheme put forward are, first of all, that it errs fundamentally in the fact that in the provinces to be set up there will be a minority of the population other than that ruling the province. That is the beginning of trouble, and whether we have partition or provinces it seems to me that if you put Jews or Arabs in command in any area in Palestine, with the opposite race in that area, it will be extremely difficult ever to achieve very much success.
Also, it is absolutely essential to any successful outcome of this settlement that immigration is divorced utterly from any land settlement. I do not believe that we can implement the report of the Anglo-American Committee at the present time. As hon. Members know, it heard a great deal of very valuable evidence, and I think it has served a very useful purpose. I will go so far as to say that I agree with a great many things in it. In fact, I disagree with only three things in it, and one is the 100,000 Jews. We cannot allow 100,000 Jews in according to the line of

the Report. Furthermore, it seems to me that some hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly supporters of the Jews, have given the impression in the world that the recommendation of that Report was that 100,000 Jews should go into Palestine straightaway. That is an unfortunate impression because it has raised false hopes, and is far from being the truth of the matter in the Report as I understand it. I would have thought it better if the right hon. Gentleman had said today, "We will get agreement outside Palestine as to who takes the Jews. We will not send another Jew to Palestine until we have done that." If we had done that, then conceivably we might have produced a different reaction in the Arab world from what there has ever been before. The one thing which the Arab cannot understand is why he should be made to take Jews when nobody else will take them, and I am certain we shall never make the Arabs agree that, until we show, first of all, that we have it cut and dried that we will take so many, and America and the Empire and the Commonwealth—let them all come in, if they will.
I have come to the conclusion that we must make some sacrifice in this matter. We are short of houses in this country, but I believe the time has come when Great Britain has to face this issue. Have we the face to ask the Arabs to take in more Jews, if they dispute the immigration, if we are not prepared to take in some? I am perfectly prepared to welcome some. Let us take as many as we possibly can in our present plight of housing, but let us say also that we will ask the four corners of the earth, if need be, to join us in trying to find other homes for them. Until we do that, I do not believe we shall ever get the Arabs to work in with the administration of Palestine.
I have spoken too long and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House. In conclusion, may I say that during this war I spent quite a time in Palestine—a long session to begin with, and on and off after that. It is a country which at once inspires any person who visits it, and a country which one cannot help loving in one way or another. I love it for rather the same reason as the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. I believe other right hon. Members love it for a different reason but, whatever it be, that land was called a Holy Land, and pray God, we keep it so.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: I want first to deal with the statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) with regard to myself. He raised this matter first in a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. I am not a regular reader of "The Jewish Standard," and at that time I had not read the article in question. However, outside this Chamber I told the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I had not made the statement, and I am therefore somewhat surprised, since he is so strong in his feeling that the spreading of this statement would be dangerous in Palestine, that he has repeated it all over again this afternoon, despite my personal assurance to him that it was a gross perversion of anything I had said. I feel that party propaganda may be more powerful sometimes than the interests and good of our troops in Palestine.
I feel it is necessary, therefore, that I should make a full statement. I have looked at the paper, of which I now have a copy, and I want to say emphatically that I never said, and never could have said, the words attributed to me, in which I was alleged to advise the Jews of Palestine to go underground and to oppose an airborne division by all means other than violence. It would be strange to advise 600,000 Jews to go underground, and oppose an airborne division, and I think I can safely assure the House that that was not what I said and that the reporter—I regret I have to say this of a journalist—must have been someone who knew Hebrew better than English.
The whole burden of the speech which I made on that occasion at St. Pancras, as hon. Members who were present will confirm, was a very strong appeal to the Jews of this country to use all the influence they conceivably could at this time of crisis to prevent violence in any form or resistance to the British troops, whatever provocation the Jews of Palestine may have felt. That was the purpose of that meeting; the purpose which every speaker, including myself, carried out to the letter. I hope that that deals with the matter finally. I will give way, if the hon. and gallant Member wishes to withdraw.
Let me deal with the crisis of Palestine in three parts. I want to deal with the

immediate crisis, the Government's federal plan, and the general problem of the Middle East. The last time we debated the question on the Adjournment, we raised this matter because in our view, to use my own words in that Debate:
That the course of policy adopted by His Majesty's Government will not stop, but precipitate, violence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Monday, 1st July, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 1883.]
In that Debate, I used two arguments in support of that view. I suggested that as far as I knew the situation there, it was almost certain that the British would arrest everybody except the real terrorists. I suggested, further, that they would lock up the moderates whose influence would be absolutely essential to prevent acts of violence in Palestine. Thirdly, I suggested that resistance cannot be broken by pure repression. I believe that what I said on that occasion has been lamentably, and tragically, confirmed by events. It has been confirmed indeed, that among the 3,000 Jews locked up without charge, the active members of the Irgun were not to be found. All the elements who could have cooperated with the authorities, who could possibly have restrained the Irgun from acts of lunacy, were put into prison camps and could have no influence against such action. Since that day four and a half British divisions have been in action against 5,0,00 terrorists. It is indeed like searching for a needle in a haystack— this house to house search by British soldiers who do not know the language of the Jews, and who are given lists of names of Jews translated into English. It is highly unlikely that more than a small percentage of the terrorists will be found by the methods which are now being adopted in Tel-Aviv.
I wish to refer to one or two of the statements of the Lord President of the Council in regard to the relationship of the Hagana and the Irgun. He stated, and I think he was quite right, that after the murder of Lord Moyne there was cooperation between the Hagana and the Agency on one side, and the British authorities on the other, to find out the people behind the plot. No less than 25 Jews in Egypt who had taken part in the plotting of the murder of Lord Moyne were handed over to the British authorities by their fellow Jews of the Hagana. He should have added that long before


the murder, indeed ever since the founding of the Irgun and its breakaway from the Hagana in 1938, the Hagana had cooperated with the British in checking on Jewish terrorism. I would like to ask whether it is not in the Colonial Secretary's knowledge that more than 1,000 men, members of the Irgun, have been handed over to the British police authorities in Palestine by the Jewish Agency and the Hagana in the course of that period. There was a prolonged and steady cooperation between the Jewish illegal army and the legal Intelligence of the British Army. Strange things have happened in Palestine, and no one should be shocked by that strange relationship. It happens in relation to the Arab side as well.
I think it was 12 months ago that the Hagana came to the police authorities in Jerusalem and told them that the Irgun had developed a new rocket weapon for shooting at the King David Hotel. The pipes, from which the rockets were to be shot, were placed in a field 400 to 500 yards from the King David Hotel in a position so deep in the earth that they could not be seen. It was thought that there were two bombs there. The British police, I believe, sent out mine detectors, but failed to find the bombs with mine detectors. They came back to the Hagana and asked for more accurate information. The Hagana thereon, with great risk to themselves, kidnapped a member of the Irgun and extracted from him—by means which I cannot indicate, as I do not know them—the precise location of one of these things. With the British, they discovered the thing, and took it to pieces. I am told that the British G.O.C. admired the mechanical ingenuity of the instrument. That particular outrage was in fact prevented owing to the assistance given to the British by the Hagana intelligence service. I am putting these things forward for check. I do not know whether they are wholly true.
I am also told that on no less than three occasions since the discovery of the V3, as the rockets were nicknamed, the Hagana intelligence have warned, and repeated their warning to the British security that the King David Hotel would, one day, have an assault from the inside, and that better security should be employed by the police and military there. All these warnings were disregarded at a

moment when all the Hagana were locked up, and the terrorists of the Irgun were given a free hand. No further security was imposed on the King David Hotel, and the kitchens and night club were left inadequately guarded. In considering the responsibility for this terrible outrage, part of it, at least, must rest with those concerned with security. It is time one said this. A partial responsibility rests on anyone who knows the King David Hotel and left it, in this time of crisis, in this unguarded condition.
Let me return to the Government White Paper on the subject of collaboration between the Agency, the Hagana, and the Irgun. I have described the intimate relation between the Hagana Intelligence Service and the British authorities. Indeed, one might say that the British C.I.D. regularly reckoned to set a Jew to catch a Jew, as Arabs were set to catch Arabs. In the autumn of last year came the fatal decision—I described it as fatal every time I spoke of it to the Jews —that it was futile to continue collaboration with us against the terrorists. It was a criminal thing to say, but my own view is that it was impossible at that time, and that that was literally true. The men of the Hagana were despairing of the situation in Europe, and convinced, rightly or wrongly, that the Labour Government were not carrying out their pledges. In those months, none of them was prepared to go on kidnapping further members of the Irgun. The strain, and lack of confidence, had reached a point where this extremely delicate and unpleasant operation, in the best of circumstances, was literally impossible. The men were not prepared to carry out an arrest. But this does not excuse the political leaders who publicly stated the futility of doing so. At that time they should not make such statements, as though they positively approved of being unable to collaborate.
There was at that time an appalling problem facing the Agency. Before the House makes up its mind that the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) is correct in saying that the case against them is proved, should understand the problem that was being faced. As the White Paper states, there were members of the Agency who wanted to keep their hands clean, and not touch the Irgun, unless the British would back them up.
There were obviously others who said, "If you do that, they will blow up the King David Hotel and commit all sorts of appalling outrages, and our men will not be there to check them." It was an impossible dilemma with which the Agency was faced. If they broke the contact which had existed for years with the illegal organisations in Palestine, they knew that the Irgun would go ahead and do the appalling and atrocious deeds of which the men of that particular organisation are capable, men who, as my right hon. Friend has said, have had the poison of National Socialism soaked into them, which has turned them into what is indistinguishable from Fascists. That was, I believe, the battle which was fought out in Telegram 5: "Shall we keep our hands clean or shall we attempt to prevent the Irgun's operations against human life, and attempt to limit them to blowing up railway bridges and other lesser outrages which do not take such a toll of human life." That might appear to some of us to be a fine distinction, but in Palestine it is a real one. Rightly or wrongly, certain members of the Agency regarded it as their duty to try to keep in check the terrorists with whom they had contacts. They thought it would be wiser to—

Mr. Pickthorn: I am not sure whether the hon. Member meant to be as ambiguous as he was in his last two sentences. Is he stating what he knows, or indicating an inference from the correspondence?

Mr. Crossman: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I was indicating an inference from Telegram 5. I conclude from Telegram 5 that it illustrates this conflict of view; one group is saying one thing, and another is arguing a plan which would limit the loss of life. I do not intend to judge who was right or wrong. But I say that the problem which faced them was very difficult. Before they are condemned as criminals, it must be admitted that the only motive the Government have proved in the White Paper, for Agency collaboration with the Irgun and the Stern gang is to prevent loss of life and atrocious crimes. That is the only thing those people were doing. I do not defend the decision to cooperate, but I say that we have to understand it before we say that these men are pariahs and must be condemned.
There is one other point. We have now locked up all the leaders of the Left in Palestine—the trade union leaders, the cooperative leaders and the leaders of the Hagana. Simultaneously, we are demanding the cooperation of the Jewish people in the extermination of terrorism. But a people can only cooperate through its leaders. We can, if we wish, try to smash the terrorists on our own, without Jewish cooperation, as we are attempting to do at the moment. But no one can expect people to cooperate with them when those people are being arrested in the streets and their homes are being searched house by house. If we wish to have cooperation, we must permit the Jews to have leaders whom the people trust with whom we can cooperate. I believe that the Government have still to make up their mind whether they are determined to smash terrorism by the present method—excluding the cooperation of the Jewish people—or whether they wish to have their cooperation. In the latter case they should release from prison the men with whom they will have to cooperate, because the Jews recognise them as their legitimate and elected leaders.
Palestine is a land with a history of violence. We cannot judge it by the standards of law and order of this country. We are in consultation with the members of the Arab Higher Committee, every one of whom has crimes of violence on his' conscience, extending over no fewer than the three years of Arab revolt. If I had been speaking in this House at that time, I hope that I would have given the same advice to the Government about the Arab resistance movement as I am now giving about the Jewish resistance movement. We must make up our minds whether we intend to smash resistance to smithereens without the cooperation of the Jews. If we want cooperation we cannot say that anyone whose hands have in any way been sullied by any contact with violence must be excluded. If we said that we should exclude all the best leadership in Palestine. It is all tough and determined, and not too constitutional. On neither side, Arab or Jew, is there much leadership which is not prepared to do these things when it comes to the worst.
Very wisely, the Government have taken the view that it will be unwise to


seize the Mufti of Jerusalem and put him on trial. I believe that they were quite right in that decision. It would have turned him into a martyr. But if that applies to the Mufti, who, goodness knows, has crimes on his conscience, not merely of violence but of active cooperation with Hitler, how much more does it apply to Jewish leaders who throughout the war. as it is not denied, actively stood by us, who actively aided us in this difficult job of dealing with the Irgun, and then certainly made one political mistake? Is it not the better way to let bygones be bygones, as the Lord President said, and if we are to let Arabs of the Mufti type not be tried not to act differently towards the Jews whom we have imprisoned indefinitely without trial? One thing is certain: If the four members of the Agency who controlled the Hagana are put on trial, it will be a magnificent demonstration for Jewish extremism and fanaticism. Whether they are condemned or not, it will make no difference to the effect on the Jewish mind.
But if they are not to be tried, how can we know that they are guilty? If they should not be allowed the right to defend themselves, to tell their side of the story of the C.I.D. in Palestine—and if a quarter of what their friends say is true, there is another and interesting story about the contact of British officers with the Irgun during and after the war— where are democracy and justice? I suggest that it would be unwise to put them on trial, or to detain them for an indefinite time. It would be far wiser to call upon the Jewish Agency now to cooperate in suppressing terrorism, to release these men on condition that they come out and do again the job they did for years, and reverse the lamentable mistake of a few months ago.
May I turn to General Barker? I am not so much concerned with him as with anti-Semitism. I was a little shocked at the roars of applause on the Benches opposite when the right hon. Member for West Bristol defended General Barker from the point of view that there was a great strain in Palestine, and that little errors of tact must be explained or excused. When one's troops are doing a military operation against the Jewish people, the danger of anti-Semitism is extraordinarily high. The natural instinct is to dislike the race or people one is

fighting. There is an inclination rather to have it out with the Jewish community than to limit one's hatred to terrorism. This is a natural inclination, and it is all-important that the men at the top should give no sign of countenance, by word or praise, to support anti-Semitism. They should not officially give those under their command the feeling that it will not be ruthlessly penalised.
We are living in a strange world. I spent 120 days meeting and talking with Jews and others in Palestine, and elsewhere. I became aware of the deep unconscious anti-Semitism which there is in us, a virus, a poison which has been put into us by Hitler. I became more aware of it last Monday, when I listened to a moving Debate on Germany, in which I heard hon. Members advocating that Habeas Corpus must be given back to S.S. men; that it was impossible, as two hon. Members said, to indict a whole people. One even said that to indict an organisation was impossible. One Member said, "After all, liberty means liberty to be a Nazi." Those are sound sentiments. But I thought it a monstrous irony that a year after the war has finished hon. Members are making speeches forgiving the nation which killed six million Jews and pleading from all sides of the House that we should be fair to the Germans at a moment when they are condoning the removal of Habeas Corpus altogether in Palestine. There has not been a right to Habeas Corpus for any Jew or Arab in Palestine since the emergency regulations were introduced. They have been living under a more ruthless form of dictatorship in Palestine than the people living in the control division of Germany or Austria.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Member has referred to what I said in another Debate. I would like to make it quite clear that I have not condoned the removal of Habeas Corpus in Palestine. I disapprove of the imprisonment of Jews or Germans or anybody else.

Mr. Crossman: I am very grateful to the hon. Member. He is, I am sure, one of the logical people who does not extend to the ex-enemy, better conditions than he would extend to the ex-enemy's victims in Palestine. I indicated that there was an unfortunate tendency at the


moment on the other side of this House to condone General Barker for his indictment of a community, of a race, for the sins of 5,000 terrorists three weeks after the High Commissioner had stated expressly that this military operation was directed for the benefit of the Jewish community and against the terrorists only. Such, in three weeks, was the decline from no anti-Semitism, to anti-Semitism. I hope the Government will do something more than merely dissociate themselves from that statement. I hope the Government will make it overwhelmingly clear that we are determined not to wipe out the Zionist Movement, not to liquidate the Jewish Agency, as is suspected by every Jew in Palestine, but that we are determined only to wipe out the terrorists for the sake of the Jewish people and that we will not condone any anti-Semitism, whether it comes from a private soldier or from a general. Anti-Semitism is bad not only for the Jews but for us. Why I hate this war in Palestine is because of the bad effect it is having on our own troops. I have had letters which are openly anti-Semitic in sentiment—"Why can't we wipe out the Jews?" It is a terrible thing. We should not assist the prevention of it by condoning General Barker's unfortunate letter to his officers.
I will now say one or two words on the federal solution. When we were in Jerusalem I became convinced, rightly or wrongly, that there were only two possible alternatives for Palestine—a unitary solution or partition. I discussed this at great length with my colleagues on the Committee. They agreed with me, in view of what I said, that if the time came when it was suitable, I should be allowed to tell this part of the story. I agreed with my colleagues that partition was a counsel of despair, but I was despairing in Jerusalem. I was pessimistic, foreseeing what has happened. I was, therefore, one of the people who advocated partition during our private conversations. But I was finally convinced that one could not come back and report to the British and American Governments the counsel of despair which was in my mind, and that we must have one more try at a unitary solution. We must try to go back to 1938, before the White Paper, and that is what we reported the Government should do. They should rescind the

White Paper and go back to the old Mandate as it really was.
I still believe that if our Report had been acted on immediately, a great chance might have come off. I still believe it was rightly calculated, though I know the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol suspects me on this point. I still believe it was calculated in such a way that it was just tolerable for the Arabs, and it was sufficient to prevent the rising tide of violence among the Jews. I believe a quick acceptance in principle would have prevented all the horror in the King David Hotel and all the horror of Tel-Aviv today. But it is no good crying over spilled milk, or rather spilled blood.
I must say that, two months later, that unitary solution is, to my mind, out of the question. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol. The document we wrote is dead—dead because events have gone beyond it, because relations have got so bad not only between Jews and Arabs but, much more serious, between them and us. After all, a unitary solution depends upon good relations between the British Mandatory and the other two. I noticed much talk today about getting Jews and Arabs to love each other. Let us never forget the people they hate most of all are our troops and police. The confidence in us must be restored. I believe it can never be restored among the Jews after the events of the last six weeks and that the unitary solution must be finally abandoned. My instinct would have been to move from it with a jump to partition. But all that the Lord President said impressed me a great deal about the difficulty of jumping, with a sudden leap, from a unitary Mandate into partition. Anyway, the sudden leap would have to take two or three years. If therefore I can regard this federal scheme now propounded as the transitory stage between the present unitary Mandate and two separate States, I can accept it as a practical scheme. But —and here comes the but—I notice already that the police are to be retained by the Central Government. If the police are retained by the Central Government, in the present state of Palestine, the hate of the police will continue. There are 18,000 policemen in Palestine, and the police barracks are the fortresses which dominate the country. That dominance


of the country symbolises the continuance of a police State. Under federal police what hope can Jew or Arab have that this plan is genuine?
I beg the Government to realise that if this federal scheme is to work, it will work because we give to the two Provinces something that we do not want to give them. If we give them what we do not care about, they do not value it. We have to take a risk with the Jews and the Arabs to make them believe we are going towards emancipation and not going to try and keep a domination of the British for ever in Palestine. Let them try to run the police for themselves. Why should the British people go as "Black and Tans" to Palestine and do this lamentable job? Let the Jews and Arabs do their own work. We shall have our troops there anyway. Let the Jews and Arabs have their own police to work out that part of the peace for themselves.
The test of the present scheme is the confidence we instil in the Jews and Arabs that we are being honest. There is, through the Middle East, a conviction that we are staying in Palestine, not to look after Jews and Arabs, not to conduct a Mandatory obligation, but because we have cleared our troops out of Egypt, and want to put them somewhere else. Every Jew and every Arab in Palestine will say, "If there were good reasons for the British troops going out of Egypt because the Egyptians did not want them, why on earth should we have the troops when we don't want them?" Everybody will suspect in Palestine that the federal scheme is designed to play off Jew against Arab, to ensure that we are there for ever, so that we can have the barracks at Gaza and the headquarters at Ramleh. If that is the conviction we are leaving in their minds, there is no hope of peace in Palestine. Every Arab will continue his struggle for Arab independence and every Jew will hate the police who have done to him the things which have been done in the last six weeks. There will be no peace. There will be a continuation of the situation in which four and a-half divisions have to be used to keep down a country smaller than Wales.
How are we going to give them something which is not in the Lord President's statement? How are we going to give them a proof that we mean to get out? I

suggest to the Government, and I would like an answer, that there should be a time limit. We should say that we propose to run this federal system for a certain period, five, seven, or 10 years, and after that it will be their federation or their partition, but we are not staying "for keeps." If that is promised, of course, we can go in under a treaty of alliance and our troops could stay there afterwards, but, unless we can get them to realise that we are not holding Palestine simply as a military base, and that all our moralising about Jews and Arabs is not merely the excuse for a military base, there will be no military base, because it is an untenable military base as long as both Jews and Arabs detest us. Imagine if war comes tomorrow and we have to call on the Hagana again to help us, as we did after the last war. How can Palestine be a military base when both Jews and Arabs detest the autocracy of British military rule?

Brigadier Low: Will the hon. Member make it quite clear whether he wants a military base or not?

Mr. Crossman: That is a perfectly fair question, and the answer is that I am not a strategist. If the Government want a military base, they should say openly to Jews and Arabs, when it comes to the question of independence, that we should like to negotiate a treaty and would like to have this concession in the treaty. The argument used by the Government about Egypt must also apply to Palestine.
That brings me to my last point. I believe that the same thing applies to the whole of the Middle East. Palestine is only part of the problem. We should be prepared to say to the world that, within a given number of years, we are going to give up our unilateral military responsibility for holding this vital line of communications, and put the matter before U.N.O. There a scheme should be worked out, in which we would participate, for a joint sharing of that responsibility, not only with America and the adjacent Arab States, but also with Russia. If that happened I believe it would be an essential step to the peace of the Middle East, and it is to that final end that we should go forward.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is the first occasion on which I have spoken in this House on this subject since the publication of the Report which we all signed, and I do not propose to spend much time, if the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) will forgive me, in following the arguments which he has just adduced, but I would like to make this quite clear. So far as his interesting account of the relationship between Haganah and the Irgun is concerned, no evidence with regard to that and to the effect which the hon. Member stated, was given before members of the Committee. I hope I misheard the hon. Member about this, and, if I did, I hope he will correct it, but he did seem to me to cast some responsibility for the outrage concerning the King David Hotel upon those responsible for the security measures in that neighbourhood.

Mr. Crossman: I was putting the responsibility on them for permitting the Irgun to enter the hotel—not for causing the outrage, but for permitting it to occur.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: When the hon. Member looks at the words he uttered in HANSARD tomorrow, he will probably be grateful to me for giving him the opportunity to make that quite clear. Thirdly, so far as the appeal for release now of members of the Jewish Agency is concerned, I part company with him entirely upon that, and upon the ingenious interpretation which he has given to the telegrams set out in the White Paper. I do not want to take up time over these matters, and I think it would be unfortunate if when we are having to discuss the whole future of Palestine, too much time is taken up in discussing the letter written by General Barker.
I make no claim to speak on this subject as an expert. Many of us in this House have studied this problem for many years, and some hon. Members have a long acquaintanceship with conditions in that country. I have not been there for very long, nor have I studied the problem for very long, and I do not commit anyone by what I say, nor do I speak for any of my colleagues on the Committee, but I do maintain that a report written, as it was, in a very considerable hurry, after hearing masses of evidence in many parts of the world, and

without the literary merits of the Peel Report, whose authors were fortunate in having much more time at their disposal, none the less did point the way to the restoration of peace in Palestine. We signed that Report on 20th April, and the fact that we -all signed it should not be lightly disregarded. As to whether events subsequent to that date have made all our recommendations capable of fulfilment or not, and, in particular, the recommendation as to the 100,000, I shall have something to say later on. but it is right to say that we carefully examined each proposal that was put before us— partition, federation, cantonisation, and the rest. The hon. Gentleman was not quite accurate when he said that our objection to the partition solution was because we felt that we could not come forward with the same recommendation as the Peel Report, which had been turned clown. The hon. Gentleman implied that—

Mr. Grossman: I never said that was why it was rejected, but that it was a counsel of despair.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think the hon. Gentleman went a little further than that in indicating the reasons for our rejection. Looking back on it now, I regret that we did not set out more fully in that Report the good and sufficient reasons, as I think, for rejecting these solutions. I do not want to delve deeply into past history, but, if a solution is to be found, I think two things must be constantly remembered. The first is that, ever since the Balfour Declaration came out, there has been a steady and sometimes rapid growth of Jewish nationalist feeling. Since 1942, we have had the creation of a Jewish State adopted as part of the official Zionist programme, and Nazi oppression has increased the belief that only in a land ruled by Jews can they live without fear, in freedom and security. Now, such is the intensity of nationalist feeling and the effect of propaganda, that most of the Jews in Palestine, and, I think, most in America, and, certainly, a considerable number here, appear to hold the firm belief, that, if Palestine does not become a Jewish State, Great Britain will be guilty of a breach of faith, though a Jewish State has never, in fact, been promised. That, on the one side, is one factor of the situation which must always be remembered.
The other is that, from Easter Day of 1920 until the outbreak of the war, the history of Palestine has largely been that of outbreaks of Arab violence, due, from the first, to fear of political and economic subjection to the Jews. The Arabs want to go on living in that thickly populated land which their own forefathers have occupied and cultivated for hundreds of years, and theirs is the feeling which every Welshman, Scotsman, Englishman and American would have if he was told that hundreds of thousands of another nationality were going to settle in what he regarded as his own country and convert it into an alien State.
That was the problem which we and the Committee had to face, and it is the problem which this House has to face. How are these deeply held and conflicting views to be reconciled—the Jewish view that Palestine is Eretz Israel, their acknowledged, and, according to them, their promised land; the Arabs regarding it as the land of their forefathers, of which they cannot, rightfully, be dispossessed? I believe that, if we consider these two angles, we arrive at the position by which any solution of the Palestine problem must be judged. There are really two tests. The first is, To what extent will the proposed solution bring about a reconciliation, and make it possible for Jew and Arab to live together, or side by side, in friendship, and so bring peace to Palestine? The other test is, Is the solution a final one, or is it going to leave the door open for further pressure to be put upon the mandatory or trustee, for further violence, in the hope of gaining some advantage? That, perhaps, is as important a test as the first I mentioned, and any solution that is put forward should be judged by those two tests.
The possible solutions are, of course, either to give way to the Jews or to the Arabs, or to find a compromise. For good reasons, into which I do not think I need now enter at length, we rejected both the Jewish and the Arab cases. But if it was right and just to accede to the Jewish claim for domination over Palestine, and if that would bring peace, we should not be deterred from the adoption of that course by the mere fact that, by so doing, we might appear to be giving way to Jewish violence. That wanton violence, the complicity of certain members of the Jewish Agency, as was clearly

established and long suspected, in the commission of outrages which have involved the loss of British lives, solely to meet Jewish demands, and the carefully stimulated bitter anti-British propaganda in the United States to the same end, should make us think long and carefully, but should not prevent us from meeting their claims, if it is right to do so.
But it was my view, and, I think, the view of all who signed the Report, that that was not the right solution. Such are the respective birth rates that, in spite of what has been done in the way of facilitating immigration, there is always likely to be in Palestine a Jewish minority, unless the Arabs are driven out. I cannot contemplate the domination by a minority of the majority, of the Jews in that country becoming a sort of Herrenvolk. I think that they might have been wiser in their treatment of the Arabs in the years gone by and, had they been, one might have had more confidence in their government in the future. It is impossible, on moral or legal grounds, to justify making the Arabs in Palestine, whose ancestors have lived there for so long, the subjects of the Jews. But it is equally impossible to turn the clock back to before 1917 and subject 600,000 Jews to Arab domination. Any such conclusion would immediately lead to an uprising of the entire Jewish community. Therefore, one is driven back to one of the three compromise solutions— partition, federation or cantonisation. At first sight, partition is the most attractive. It was recommended by the Peel Report, it has not been tried, and it has all the attraction of a new medicine when others have failed to cure the patient.
The argument used in support of it is that, if people are quarrelling in one room, they should be put into different rooms. That may. of course, be the solution provided it can be ensured that they remain in different rooms. But I believe that, to be effective, partition can only come about by agreement between Jews and Arabs. It is not a solution which can be imposed from above unless we are prepared to maintain the division of the land by force. If partition is adopted, Jewish control over immigration into the Jewsh State would apparently be given, and many of the arguments against the creation of a Jewish State would apply to the State created by partition. I believe that the Arab reaction to it would be far


worse than it was to the recommendation of the admission of 100,000 immigrants, for, after all, the Arabs would say that, by partition, the Jews were getting unlimited immigration and a portion of the land. I quite appreciate, so far as the Jews are concerned, that partition might secure peace for a few years, but I think it likely that it might lead to a more acute and more difficult problem hereafter, a cry for Lebensraum and, possibly, stronger armed forces to deal with it. It would clearly lead to artificially unmanageable frontiers, and to some Arabs being ruled by Jews, and some Jews by Arabs.
One has got to face up to this issue. Either the time has come when we must say that Jew and Arab can no longer live together, or we must say that there is still hope of their getting on together if the obstacles to their doing so can be removed. If we come to the conclusion that all hope of their living together has gone and that they must be kept separated, I say that, in spite of my criticisms of partition, it is a better solution than the one which the Government have put forward today. I myself am against partition, and all the members of that Committee signed the Report because we were against it and because we then believed that it was not impossible for Jews and Arabs to go on working together in the future.
If we divide this country on the basis that Jews and Arabs cannot live together, it seems to me that we are not likely to secure a reduction of their present nationalistic feeling. I believe that that solution would be welcomed by some Jews as a step towards their ultimate objective of making Palestine a Jewish State, particularly if it included more land than they now own. But if that basic premise, that they cannot live together and must be separated, is accepted, we are really sounding the death knell of the Jewish national home. If Palestine is to support the natural growth of Jew and Arab populations, it must have greatly increased industrialisation and intensified agriculture, and it is necessary, whether Palestine is unitary, bipartite or tripartite, for its economic survival, that it should be an integral whole economically and an integrated part of the Middle East. Are we going to secure that by dividing Jew from

Arab in Palestine? Are we going to make it easier for the two nations to merge and become friends by forming divisions between them, which either side may not willingly accept?
Judging by the two tests which I have put forward, reconciliation and finality, I believe that partition is better than federation. But partition does not hold out very great promise of finality and, in that connection, may I quote from a document which was handed to us in Palestine by the Jewish resistance movement and which is signed by the head of Command of that movement? It contained the following passage, which makes me doubtful whether these proposals for partition or federation will lead to the absence of violence:
We shall not accept a symbolic independence in a dwarf like token state which will not give us the chance of developing a1ll the resources of the country and creating here a safe asylum for all Jews who are compelled or wish to come.
If I may turn to the proposals put forward by the Government today, I would like to start my comments by saying that I hope they will lead to more peace in that country. I have only had the chance of hearing what the Lord President has said.
It appears to me to be a variant of partition, to have most of the disadvantages of partition and some additional ones. I think that if the suggestion that the Jewish Province should control the police within that province were adopted the British would be held responsible for all that went wrong without having any opportunity of maintaining law and order in the country. Again, federation would mean unmanageable boundaries, the allocation of land by race, and I am sorry that the Lord President was not a little more definite in his explanation when he said that the Jewish Province would include Jewish land, an area between and around the Settlements.' That may cover a great deal or very little, and we ought to know, because when we are considering either partition or federation, the first thing we want to know is what area is to be taken into which province, the populations and the resources of the various provinces. We had put before us early this year detailed proposals which bear a remarkable resemblance to the plan which the Government have now adopted. I think I can almost say that


they were probably entirely the same. We considered them and the Committee rejected them.

Mr. Mikardo: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman say from whom these detailed proposals were obtained?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: They were submitted to us, I think in writing, by a witness in this country.

Mr. Mikardo: Was he an official?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I do not think I need go into any more detail on that. If the evidence is published the hon. Member will be able to see it. The scheme was put forward, and the hon. Member for East Coventry will confirm what I have said.

Mr. Crossman: It was Scheme "C."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think it was Scheme "C." It was very similar to the proposals which we are now considering. We rejected it because it did not appear to have the merits of finality, it appeared to be leading to unworkable arrangements, it might lead to greater friction, and instead of giving an incentive to Jew and Arab to get together in that country it was an incentive to them to keep apart and distinct, when the whole future of Palestine will depend upon that division being removed.
I will say a few words about the scheme which is before us, because the details are very important. The scheme before us would have covered, I think, in the Jewish province 301,000 Arabs and 451,000 Jews. It would have taken into the Jewish Province 68 per cent. of the Arab citrus plantations, and 70 per cent. of the plain lands which might be irrigated if water can be taken there. The Jewish Province would have had 63 per cent. of the revenue, 12 per cent. being left for the Arab Province and little for the central Government. I doubt whether that can work. But if we accept the assumption that Jew and Arab cannot get on together, I would have preferred the Government to have gone straight for partition. Our solution was to put forward an incentive to collaboration and not to conflict, and to make Jew and Arab realise that this intense and excessive nationalism is really harmful. I am sorry that our recommendation No. 3 did not receive an emphatic endorsement on both sides of the Atlantic

at the time of the publication of our Report, and that so much emphasis should have been put upon the Recommendation with regard to the 100,000. I think the recommendation that there should be no Jewish or Arab domination was, perhaps, far more important for peace in Palestine. It would remove Arab fears and lessen the tension. I agree that it might involve a long trusteeship or continuance of the Mandate, but I do not sec any alternative to that, and I do not think the Government's proposals will lead to a short cut solution. Indeed, I think what appears most difficult and most onerous will be a short cut in the end. If we can once remove from the Arab the fear of domination by the Jew, and remove from the Jew the aspiration of domination over all the Arabs, I think we will have gone a long way towards enabling those two peoples to live together. I think the Arabs would then be able to take an entirely different view of the question of immigration, and they would not then regard each Jew as a recruit for an illegal army.
In that connection, I would like to say a few words about our recommendation No. 6, which, of course, will go by the board, as I understand it, in view of the Government statement today. We recommended there that the governing consideration with regard to ail immigration should be the wellbeing of all in Palestine, and we did not recommend in our comment, which has to be read with the recommendation, that in the new trusteeship agreement there should be any obligation to facilitate Jewish immigration. Indeed, if one takes our comment there with our comment on recommendation No. 7, where we point out that the country is thickly populated and unless there is a marked change in the method of cultivation it will not carry much of an increase in population, one may well wonder whether, after the implementation of our recommendation of 100,000, there would be room for many more inhabitants in that land. Whether there would or would not must depend to some extent on the practicability of the irrigation schemes, on which we were unable to express an opinion.
We may be asked why we recommended 100,000 immigrants to go from Europe into Palestine. That recommendation was largely due to what we saw of conditions in Europe, the great desirability for empty-


ing the Jewish displaced persons' camps and for giving them some hope, and to the Jewish Agency's promise to look after them. The immigration was to take place as rapidly as conditions would permit. I am sorry to say that I think recent actions by the Jews in Palestine have made it more difficult, and may have delayed, if not prevented, the immigration of that number within the time which otherwise might have been possible. I do not think that one can move victims of war in Europe into another arena where fighting and violence is as frequent as it is at present.
That recommendation of ours was linked with recommendation No. 1, and I am sorry, too, that no action on that recommendation has been taken from 20th April until now. We know that the United States were admitting 39,000 of all nationalities this year, and now we are told by the Lord President that the United States are resuming normal immigration and expect to receive 53,000 in each year from European countries. One does not know how many Jews will be included in that number, but we reported that there were 500,000 Jews who wanted to leave Europe, and that Palestine could not take them all. I wish the United States, who recognise the situation in Europe, would sectan example—and it would be a very helpful example—by making a great and generous gesture in offering to admit to within her shores some of these victims of Nazi persecution. I remember being told in the course of the deliberations of this Committee, that there was scarcely a Polish Jew surviving who had not got a relation in America. I feel certain that many of them would like to go to the United States if only the facilities were available, and I feel strongly that, if that attitude could be adopted in the United States, it would lead to a different attitude on the part of the Arabs to the admission of a large number of Jews into Palestine.
Finally, I want to say a few words with regard to the land transfer regulations and the Jewish Agency. In our report we did not recommend the removal of protection to the Arab land cultivator. We recommended that he should have protection wherever he should be in Palestine. I appreciate the difficulties of the Lord President, but I should have

liked to know what were the powerful safeguards the Arabs would possess in the Jewish Province, and that the Jews would possess in the Arab Province, in view of the local legislative powers which would be conferred upon the Governments of those provinces. Nothing has been said —perhaps it cannot be said yet—as to the future of the Jewish Agency. I hope that that Agency will cooperate more in future than it has in the past. I hope, too, that it will become more representative of the Jews in Palestine, and, in particular, that it will include among its members representative of the Agudas Israel, the orthodox religious Jews. Any solution which will bring peace to the Holy Land and, at the same time, lighten the intolerable burden on British shoulders and on the British Army will, I am sure, be welcomed by both sides of this House. I hope the Government's proposals will bring about more success in those directions than I, at the moment at any rate, think they will. I feel myself that if this desire for power can be removed, the time has not come when we can say it is impracticable for Jew and Arab to get on together. However, if it has, then I cannot help feeling that the only alternative is to go to the other extreme of partition rather than federation, leaving the Mandatory Power or the trustee, whoever it may be, still to be pushed from one side or the other, on either immigration or the many other kindred problems.

7.22 p.m.

Lieut-Colonel Harry Morris: I feel that no words of mine would adequately convey the horror I felt last week when I heard of the blowing up of the King David Hotel. I can do no more than say I regard it, as do most Jews in the world outside Palestine, as an act, not only of incredible wickedness but of incredible stupidity. The dreams some of us had of the Jewish future lie in the ruins of the King David Hotel. I am sincere in my remarks, and I can only leave it to those Who listen to the observations I make to decide whether they believe it or not. The Government say now, as they said during the last Debate, what they were engaged in doing, and what they were entitled to do to preserve law and order. No one challenges the right of the Government as the Mandatory Power, but I hope it will be remembered that the Government are only the Mandatory Power in Palestine;


Palestine is not a British Colony; the Jews are not natives, and the Arabs are not natives who are being, or are likely to be, treated as are backward peoples in a British Colony. The British Government have the right to maintain law and order, but there must be in the minds of those who speak for the British Government just what the Government mean by "law" and by "order." If it is the law of the tank and the tommygun, if it is the law of repression, of which the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) has spoken, the British Government must not be surprised that the order they are seeking to maintain is an unreal order, the sort of order that on some occasion may break out into the bitterest disorder.
For the Government to talk about terrorism and no more is to show a fundamental disregard of the basis of the whole policy. This Government have a past in connection with this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, who has spoken about it, also has a past in connection with it, of which I will remind him in a moment. When talking about terrorism, it seems to me the Government might consider this: Why is it that those who have in the past been commended for their exemplary patience and forbearance suddenly embark on a career of terrorism? Why is it they begin to do things which apparently they did not do before? Why is it they manifest a spirit which they have not hitherto manifested? The Government cannot entirely rid themselves of some responsibility in this matter. It is true that when this Government came into power the Jews, in Palestine certainly, and Jews throughout the world, were entitled to assume that at last there had come into being a Government pledged, and fully pledged, to support the idea of the Jewish National Home. When I say "pledged," that is exactly what I mean. It is idle for the Foreign Secretary to pretend that resolutions which had been passed in succeeding conferences —apart from observations made in announcements from the Government Front Bench in this House—were irresponsible outbursts in the enthusiasm of a Labour Party Conference. They were serious and considered resolutions, which had been contained in a set declaration of policy. I would like to quote the declaration of policy made by the British Government —at any rate, by those who now comprise

the British Government—in connection with the Palestine situation:
Here we have halted halfway, irresolute between conflicting policies. But there is surely neither hope nor meaning in a ' Jewish National Home ' unless we are prepared to let Jews, if they wish, enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become a majority. There was a strong case for this before the war. There is an irresistible case now, after the unspeakable atrocities of the cold and calculated German Nazi plan to kill all Jews in Europe. Here, too, in Palestine, surely, is a case, on human grounds and to promote a stable settlement for transfers of population. Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out, as the Jews move in. Let them be compensated handsomely for their land, and let their settlement elsewhere be carefully organised and generously financed. The Arabs have many wide territories of their own; they must not claim to exclude the Jews from this small area of Palestine less than the size of Wales. Indeed we should re-examine also the possibility of extending the present Palestinian boundaries by agreement with Egypt, Syria, or Transjordan. Moreover, we should seek to win the full sympathy and support both of the American and Russian Government for the execution of this Palestine policy.
That was a declaration of the postwar international settlement, made in 1944, at the Labour Party Conference.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would the hon. and gallant Member mind telling the House the title and nature of that document, and its date?

Lieut.-Colonel Morris: That is the declaration on "The Post-War International Settlement," 1944. This was adopted by the Labour Party Conference in December, 1944. It went a good deal further than that; it did not stop there. Many hon. Members, who are members of the party to which I have the honour to belong, have probably seen this document. This is a speakers' handbook, comprising instructions as to party policy, which was given to Labour candidates during the last General Election. One was given to me.

Mr. M. Philips Price: May I interrupt the hon. and gallant Member to inform him that there were plenty of members of the party who did not follow that lead, and I was one of them?

Lieut.-Colonel Morris: I am reminding hon. Members opposite what the policy was. I understand that a very large part of the responsibility for the production of this particular handbook belongs to the Lord President of the Council, who opened


this Debate. Let me quote, because this is official policy:
There is neither sense nor meaning in a Jewish national home unless we are prepared to let Jews, if they wish, enter this tiny land in such numbers as to become a majority. Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.
That was official party policy. It was the policy which I myself expounded on platforms. I did not come into this House to represent Jews, let me be perfectly clear about that, but I had, and still have, some Jews in my constituency, and I represent them, and they asked me, as they were entitled to do, what was the policy of the Labour Party in Palestine, and I was entitled to say to them, and I did say to them, "Here you are, read it for yourselves."
Is it really surprising that when the Labour Party came into power last year the Jews of the world hailed their coming with delight? They relied on the party pledge to support the idea of the Jewish National Home. Other hon. Members have spoken of the intentions in regard to Palestine, and I have heard Jewish leaders against whom there is no charge of any sort of complicity in the recent outrage, and British leaders as well, who have said that the tension in Palestine was growing to incredible heights and there was bound to be an eventual outburst. Is that surprising, when during these 12 months, nothing has happened—and when I say nothing, I mean nothing. In November of last year the Foreign Secretary announced to a very surprised House that he intended to set up a new Commission, and he was asked by me in February what he expected to get from it that he had not got from previous Commissions; he was also asked what he would do about it when he got the report of that Commission, whether he would implement its decisions or would there be delay, further temporising, and would the tension grow still further?
Was the suggestion I made in February, that the decision to appoint that Commission was unfortunate, unjustified? Was there some substance in it or justification for it, because what did happen? The report was before this House; it was issued by the Vote Office on 1st May, and as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) pointed out repeatedly, the only persons concerned in the question who had not yet stated their policy were

the very people who were responsible, the Government, and that was the situation until today. Until today we have had no clue from the British Government as to their policy for Palestine. All that we have had have been descriptions of the administrative action which the British Government thought it necessary to take. Is it possible that the patience and forbearance we have been recommending to other people have given out? It is very easy for us sitting here to counsel patience and forbearance to others who are perhaps differently situated. But how does that sound to a man whose father and mother perished in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, whose sister perhaps went into a German brothel, whose family is gone and whose children, perhaps, if any remain, are still in concentration camps when, but for the dilatory policy of His Majesty's Government, they might already be in Palestine? Is it surprising that that particular man should lose patience; in the same circumstances, should we be quite so patient?
No one excuses or seeks to condone terrorism, but it seems to me that if we do not examine the background of terrorism we are manifesting a fundamental disregard of the whole question. Why all the delay about the present solution, which the Government have kept to themselves while the tension has been getting worse? The Lord President of the Council comes along like a conjuror producing a rabbit out of a hat—a rabbit which has, apparently, already escaped and created a certain amount of mischief. "This," he says, "is the new policy which we propose, and which we hope will provide a just and lasting settlement of the Palestine problem." I do not invite the House to accept from me an accurate description of what that policy would mean. Let roe read to the House a description given by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Agriculture of a similar proposal, in a Debate which took place in this House on 22nd and 23rd May, 1939. He said:
The right hon. Gentleman repeated those words this afternoon. It all depends on the kind of home one has in mind. If one thinks in terms of the home envisaged by Lord Balfour, obviously immigration must continue. If one thinks on the lines of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, of some three or four million Jews making their home there, immigration will have to go on


for a long time indeed. If one thinks in terms of a home where a happy, free and contented people arc working out their destiny, that would be one kind of a home; but the White Paper seems to think in terms of a ramshackel council house—what has been described as a ' territorial ghetto '—and which is not theirs to occupy, but where they are to be, like a lodger, in a position to be turned out at any moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd May, 1939; Vol. 347, c. 1960.]
That is a description of this policy which was pronounced by a Member of the present Government. I invite the House to accept, not my view of the present proposal, but the view adumbrated by the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Agriculture.
One more word about that particular policy. It has been said that it has all the disadvantages of partition with none of the advantages. It is a policy which, though they themselves have rejected it in the past, this Government now bring here as a solution and fulfilment of all the pledges and promises they made. This policy, so far as we have been able to judge from the Press, and it is very difficult indeed to form any tangible views on the policy as expressed by the Lord President this afternoon, envisages something like this: 15 per cent. of the land of Palestine goes to the Jews, 40 per cent. or so to the Arabs, and the British Government have the remainder. Why do the British Government have the remainder? Perhaps the answer is this. During the last Debate we had on Palestine in which I had the opportunity of taking part I suggested to the Government that it would appear—I put it no higher than that—that they were playing the game of power politics in the Middle East while paying lip service to the ideals of U.N.O. If that is not true, perhaps the Government will tell us what this means: "Treaty of Alliance between His Majesty in respect of the United Kingdom and His Highness the Emir of Transjordan." It is a treaty of military alliance between the British Government and the Emir of Transjordan, purely and simply a military alliance and nothing more. We wondered, as we were entitled to wonder, what it was in the political institutions of Transjordan which had so compelled the admiration of His Majesty's Government as to warrant the granting of such an alliance. But there is another argument.
There was a Debate which took place in another place in which Lord Strabolgi

spoke on behalf of the Government, and gave an answer to those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative Party who manifested some concern about the Government's equanimity in removing British troops from Egypt, and who, apparently, saw in this the giving up of the British Empire. Lord Strabolgi gave an answer in another place why British troops were there. Are the British Government playing power politics in the Middle East? Is it the fact that, in Palestine, the ideal of a Jewish National Home does not fit in with the picture of the British Imperial position in the Middle East? I am sorry we are manifesting signs of military imperialism. It may be, perhaps, that I have engaged in bitter recriminations against the Government which may not help the situation, but I, and all of us, desire to see some solution to this really dreadful problem. Here is the Government's opportunity. Here is an opportunity for the Government to bring about a just and equitable solution. We are, I think, on the threshold of a new chapter in the history of the Jews. There are many chapters in that history that have been written in blood, and there are many chapters soaked in tears. We ask the Government not to write another bloody chapter in that history, but to write a new chapter, with a pen dipped in the well of justice.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. Raikes: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Central Sheffield (Lieut. -Colonel Morris) has painted the picture more vividly than I could. False hopes were, undoubtedly, raised in the minds of many Jews by the Labour Party before that party became the Government. It so often happens in this world, particularly in this country, I think, that men find, when they come to Government, and have responsibility, many things far more difficult to do than they appeared to be before. Nevertheless, hopes falsely aroused always have evil effects as time goes on. Beyond saying that, I do not propose to comment on the past. I want to look, as certain other hon. Members have, a little to the future.
I am certain of one thing beyond all else. So long as we assume that Palestine is simply and solely a solution to the problem of European Jewry, we are in


or disappointment. We have these vast numbers of Jews in Europe today, many of whom have got to be found new homes. It is a little ironic that, after we have fought the greatest war in history for freedom and, presumably, amongst other things, to bring freedom to the Jews as well as to others, that there are still such vast numbers of Jews who, probably rightly, are longing to get away from Europe. Be that as it may, there are still several hundred thousands who cannot get away. They must have an outlet, and unless and until the United States of America, Great Britain and the British Empire, and the great civilised nations of the world are prepared to take their quotas of these men and women we shall never get a change of heart in the Arab world.
One of my main criticisms of the Anglo-American Committee's Report, on which I want to say a word or two, is that in it there are fine phrases about the Holy Land and the brotherhood of man. They are dotted about all through the Report. They express admirable sentiments, but, nevertheless, are not the sort of thing to appeal to those who are expected to take 100,000 extra Jews into a small country about half the size of Wales, while, behind these high moral platitudes, the Christian nations of the world are not really making even a gesture. I take the view that, the Jewish problem being as it is, whatever amount of immigration of Jews there may have to be, the Empire and America should be prepared to take a quota, and a substantial quota, of these Jews. If we do that we can then turn to the Palestine problem with an easier conscience, because then, in time, we may succeed in arousing a feeling amongst the Arabs that does not exist today—the feeling that we are really prepared to play our part in shouldering the burden, and are not trying to force it on to those in other parts of the world who are weak.
That brings me to the new solution which was produced this afternoon. I want to emphasise that I do not believe that that solution or any other solution can play an effective part unless it is accompanied by a real gesture by Britain and America to take a larger number of Jews. The scheme put up is not an entirely new one. It is a scheme that was

rejected, broadly speaking, by the Peel Committee, and that was rejected by the Committee we set up last year. That does not mean, of necessity, that this scheme will not work. There are one or two questions I would like to ask about it. For example, I do not know, in the new Jewish and Arab partition, where the line will be drawn. Under the Peel Report, North Galilee was to go to the Jews, and Jaffa to the Arabs. I understand that North Galilee is largely populated by Arabs, and that that region will go to the Arab share. But I do not know what is the position regarding Jaffa. The position of Jaffa is extraordinarily important, if we are to get the Arabs to play their part. The difficulty over Jaffa, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite will appreciate, is that that is the largest of the Arab cities in Palestine, but surrounded by Jewish communities that have grown, to a large extent, since the time of the Peel Commission's Report. Nevertheless, whatever the difficulty may be, it does seem to me that if Jaffa, which is an Arab city, were to be outside the Arab province, that would prejudice the chance of the new scheme being considered, at the very outset.
Unless the Government and the Americans can obtain the cooperation of Arabs and Jews, this new scheme is no earthly good. It is no good forcing it upon them, because if we do that, it is bound to fail. I say to hon. Members opposite, who may have a strong feeling towards the Jewish case, not to forget that if conditions arise in which the people of this country have to risk expenditure and lives in order to force a settlement which they are not satisfied is just, we shall inevitably have a recrudescence of anti-Semitism. All will agree that we must avoid that if we are to maintain our liberal spirit of toleration. There is anti-Semitism today, and that feeling will inevitably grow if an unfair solution is imposed. I think that the Government may find that their halfway house will be like so many compromises, and that it will not be as effective as complete partition, or a return to the position of 1939. There is no finality about this scheme. We were told vaguely by the Lord President that somehow it might bring Jews and Arabs closer together, and that it might pave the way towards partition. The compromise has many of the worst elements of partition


without any of its clear-cut advantages. If the Government can get a reasonable number of Jews and Arabs to cooperate, then they will have the support of the House.
There are only two alternatives. Either we must go forward to complete partition, or go back to the situation of 1939. That is our difficulty. Whatever may have been the views expressed by the Labour Party at their Conference in December, 1944, the Government have never committed themselves since they came into office, that they were going to have a Jewish State as against a Jewish National Home. By giving harbourage to Jews in Palestine and not giving them control of Palestine, we are going forward on the basis of never allowing the Jews to get a majority by immigration. If we go beyond that and allow unlimited immigration on the lines of a Jewish National State, we are doing the very thing which will cause trouble with the Arabs. All along, the Arabs have feared what they call this creeping conquest of immigration, until other people are in the majority, . and have complete power over them. I hope that the Government will have the courage to reach some finality in dealing with this problem, and say whether they mean to use immigration as an instrument to make Palestine a Jewish State—which I consider would be fatal—or whether they propose to retain the idea of a Jewish National Home, and assure the Arabs that, for all intents and purposes, they will still have a reasonable say in their own land.
These are great problems, and anyone who stands up and says that he has an immediate solution to this extraordinarily difficult state of affairs is nothing but an ass. I believe that we are having a useful discussion on this question, and I only hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not close his mind against either a reversion to the 1939 position, or complete partition if he does not get any real cooperation for the present scheme.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: As I listened to the Leader of the House making his statement, I could not help feeling, particularly in that part which related to displaced Jews in Europe, that I was listening to a quotation from the statement submitted to the Anglo-American Committee by the hon. Mem-

ber for Mile End (Mr. piratin) and his colleague, County Councillor Jack Gaster. The suggestions made in the statement today were made by them before the recent terrorist acts, and had they been accepted then the situation in Palestine might have been easier. The so-called plan which has been put forward and presented to us as a reasonable compromise is a miserable makeshift, and it will solve no problem. It will make the position worse than it was before, and bring further suffering to the Jewish people.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) was in favour of partition. He thought that we should keep these people in two separate compartments. What sort of people are we? An hon. Member who sits behind me said that God was anxious to get the Jews into Palestine—I do not know much about that; it is the hon. Member's business and not mine—but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol seems to be taking on the attributes of a god, saying "We will put some people in this compartment, and some people in that compartment." What an attitude to adopt, and what an opinion we have of ourselves. But there are other and greater gods, for we were told by the Minister, and it was reiterated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, that we cannot decide on what we are going to do until the bigger gods across the Western ocean speak their minds. What a come-down for the mighty British Empire with all its history and traditions. We must wait to see what the almighty dollar says. That is a shameful position.
This question has two facets. There is the simple direct solution—and there is no other. One can play about with cantonisation, federalisation and partition, but there is one solution only, and that is independence for Palestine. When I make that suggestion, I am told that if we give independence to Palestine, take away the British troops, and, instead of letting them be killed there, bring them home—and why should they not be brought home to their mothers and families?—the Arabs and Jews will slaughter one another. But I am also told that if the troops are brought away from India the Muslims and Hindus will slaughter one another. The same in Ireland, if the partition is removed Catholics and Protestants will tear one


another to pieces. Is it not a very significant and a very sinister thing that where British Imperialist influence is predominant, these murderous impulses exist? I say take away this unsavoury influence, and ordinary people will find ways and means of living together in harmony and cooperation. That is the solution.
The next question, and one which has to be dealt with, is that of anti-Semitism. It can only be dealt with when one understands and gets at the cause of anti-Semitism. I have heard many fine sentiments expressed in connection with it. This question of the solution of anti-Semitism is related to the question of independence for Palestine. There is a serious wave of anti-Semitism which is being encouraged by the higher-up in Palestine. The views expressed by General Barker are a disgrace, and this man should be immediately withdrawn and vigorously prosecuted by the War Office. We are told they are under a heavy strain. Of course the soldiers and officers there are under a heavy strain. But it does not matter how heavy the strain is, if such sentiments are not inside they will not come out. The sentiments were there before the strain came on, or this would never have come out in the form in which it has come out, so I say that this man should be brought home, and dealt with by the War Office. It is an easy thing to condemn terrorists, but that does not get us anywhere. We have to try to understand what is happening over there to throw them into that situation. I have always been opposed to terrorism, because there is nothing more calculated to confuse, demoralise and to disrupt the working classes as terrorist acts.
In principle, I have always been against terrorist acts. Many of these young men and women, a few years ago, had no thought that they would be in the position in which they are in today. They are Zionists. They believed in Palestine for the Zionists and in a Jewish State in Palestine. It was an illusion; it was a goal impossible of realisation.

Mr. Janner: Was not the Mandate actually given by 52 nations? Was it not confirmed by America? And was not that the Zionist principle as Lord Balfour declared it?

Mr. Gallacher: I do not care if there were a hundred thousand mandates. It is an illusion that Palestine could be, in the sense that the Zionists put it forward, a Jewish State. At Zionist meetings, I have tried to persuade them that they were seeking after something impossible. They could tell me that they had the support of much more important and much more influential political leaders than I. They had the support of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Do not let hon. Members go after the Labour Government. It was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford to whom, throughout the war years, they were looking as the man who was standing up as a friend of Zionism and who could help them to gain their ends. After the hell which they had suffered under Nazism in Europe, they felt, when their friends had won the war, that they would help them to gain their ends. They had the idea that at the end of the war that they were going to get Palestine. It seemed to them that the goal was practically realised. So the call went forward. Another short march and they would be there. They made a short march and came up against a brick wall. In the Mandate, Palestine has two banks. On one side is Transjordania. It is a part of Palestine recognised as such in the Mandate although different treatment had to be given to it compared with the other part of Palestine. Transjordan has always been recognised as a part of Palestine; about that there is no question. What happened? A new regime under Emir Abdullah came into being in Transjordan. Is there any democracy under the Emir Abdullah in that country? Is there any Parliament, a democratic council or a democratic organisation of any kind? There is nothing. This Emir Abdullah—

Mr. Quintin Hogg: On a point of Order. I understand that the Ruler to whom the hon. Member is referring is a reigning sovereign, King Abdullah of Transjordan, and any reference which is derogatory to a ruling Sovereign who is a friendly Ally, is not in Order in this House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (MAJOR MILNER): That is so, but I had not gathered that the hon. Member was saying anything derogatory of the Emir Abdullah personally.

Mr. Gallacher: When the Zionists speak of Palestine, they mean the country on both banks of the River Jordan. In the well known song, "Song of the Jordan," Vladimir Jabotinsky, the late leader of the Revisionists, wrote:
The Pillar that supports the bridge's span,
The spine that doth uphold the frame of man,
So Israel's spine and pillar as of yore,
Is holy Jordan, mine for evermore,
Two banks has the River Jordan,
A left bank and a right,
Both of them are ours 
Yes, there are two banks to the River Jordan and when the Zionists believed they were going to get Palestine, they thought they were going to get all of it and not a bit of it. Right in the midst of their hopes of realisation this deal was made with this fellow Abdullah. I do not know whether he is the king or whether he is a gang leader.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is the second time that the hon. Member has referred to His Majesty the King of Transjordan. I would ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in Order for the hon. Member to make a derogatory reference to His Majesty.

Mr. Kirkwood: He did not make any derogatory reference.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not in Order to make an opprobrious reflection and if the hon. Member is making such a reflection on a reigning monarch he is out of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: I am sorry, but I do not think I made any reflection. All I said was that there was no Parliament, no democratic council, no democratic organisation of any kind. We have made a treaty with the Emir of Transjordan, which gives to this exalted personage a great tract of territory, and this exalted personage is agreeable that the British troops should remain there. No doubt he will need them. This happens when these Zionist young men and women are looking forward eagerly to the realisation of their hopes in regard to Palestine as a home for the Jews. Can we not appreciate the terrible blow that this is to their hopes? The goal was near and then this happened. A desperate and futile solution occurs to them. On the road to their goal which is so near there is erected a road block, and

in a last desperate effort they believe they can blast that road block out of the way. We can understand their reason, though we cannot sympathise with their methods. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford and others encouraged these young men and women to travel that road and there is a responsibility on them when it comes to such a situation as this. I want to draw attention once again to the danger of anti-Semitism. I have been at quite a number of meetings recently, and at each of them ordinary men have asked me the question, "Is it not a case that the Jews control the finances of this country?" That is not the case; indeed it is far from it, because the directors of the Bank of England and the directors of the Big Five are Gentiles, the land is owned by Gentiles, and the owners of big industry are Gentiles.

Mr. Kirkwood: They are robbers.

Mr. Gallacher: Have a look at the Tory benches, when they are loaded; they are a real cross section of the robber gang of this country. Almost all of them, with very few exceptions, are hard-faced Gentiles. It is entirely wrong to make suggestions of that kind about the Jews. The Jewish people are a hard working, abstemious race. [Interruption.] Yes they arc. Let any hon. Member go into any of the industrial areas wherever there are Jewish people employed, and they will find they are a hard working, abstemious race, who are in a peculiar position because of the way they have been treated by history. Through persecution they have been brought into such a situation that the searchlight of public criticism is continually glaring upon them, and we always see one or two of the more undesirable characters. If we turned the same searchlight on the Gentiles we would get the same result. The courts and the prisons will testify that. Do not let us have any misunderstanding about this— that the Jewish people are hard working and abstemious. They were thrown into Europe at the time of the Dispersion when Europe was under feudalism and they came up against walled cities and walled occupations. They were unable to break into the guilds and could not therefore work at the trades the guilds represented. So it was that they were confined to domestic industries, and these have followed them right through history. Anyone who cares to read the history of that


period, will find that the merchants gradually extending trade and increasing their political power were continually forcing new charters from the barons when they came for loans. These thrifty people, the Jews, were robbed by the barons and if the barons robbed the Jews they did not have to get loans from the merchants and did not have to part with new charters. The merchants looked upon the Jews, not as unfortunate people being robbed by the common enemy but as an obstacle to their own political advancement, and that is where we get the roots of anti-Semitism. They were a buffer between the barons and the merchants. The merchants of this country saw what was happening in other countries, and they got the king to expel the Jews before they could play the part of buffer here. That is why anti-Semitism was never as strong here as it has been in other countries of Europe. What Zionism has not appreciated is that they deliberately proposed to put the Jews into a buffer position in Palestine between the Arab Nationalists and the British Imperialists

Mr. Janner: Will the hon. Gentleman please inform the House whether there was any real antagonism between the Arab workers and the Jewish workers?

Mr. Gallacher: I could show the hon. Member Jewish Press cuttings which will show where Jewish writers and speakers proposed that Palestine should be a Jewish Dominion of the British Empire, that they could always rely upon the Jews in Palestine as an outpost' of the Empire. That was making the Jewish people a buffer between British Imperialism and Arab Nationalism. If hon. Members read the reports of the early twenties they will see that the leaders of the Jewish Agency and of Histradurth were telling how the Arab masses were welcoming the Jews into Palestine, because the Jewish immigrants were bringing into Palestine, western economy which meant a step forward in progress, thus bringing prosperity, not only to the Jews but to the Arab masses. Why have they not kept the Arab masses as their friends? Because in the later twenties when the Arab campaign for independence began no support was given by the Jews for independence for Palestine. The Zionists said there would be no independence for

Palestine until they had a Zionist majority. Actually majorities and minorities are formal things. The main thing is to build the masses around you wherever you are. It is true you have got Jewish minorities in all the capitalist countries and they are in a very vulnerable position. But then they are outside of the main industrial army. They are only auxiliaries and camp followers. But, in Palestine, is the Jewish minority in that position? No, according to their own declarations, they were leaders in the economic, social, and political life of Palestine. Is not that a different kind of minority? It has no relation to the minority in this country, or in America. It is very important to have an understanding of Marxism, because if they had studied it they would have realised that the minority in Palestine is in an entirely different position from a minority in any other country.
They had the opportunity, because of the possibility of economic development, and the social and political leadership that might have been theirs, of keeping the Arab masses around them. Some have told me that the demand for independence was a trick of the Mufti and the Effendi. Maybe they were playing tricks by using independence, but how can they be defeated? Not by standing in the way of independence, but by taking the lead and joining with the forces that are working for freedom, and seeking to break the chains of Imperialism.
I appeal, at this late hour, to Zionism and to the Arabs to understand the great opportunity that lies before them of building a happy and prosperous country, to put an end to their feuds, and to unite for the purpose of achieving the realisable aim of an independent Palestine, where they can work together for the common good. I appeal to the Labour Government, to the great Labour movement, to honour the pledge which they have given, the pledge to provide the Jews with a safe and secure home in Palestine. They can only do that by finishing forever with Imperial policy. Let them give independence to Palestine so that Arabs and Jews, Semitic brothers, may live in harmony and cooperation, and build up the prosperity of the country in order to provide a safe and happy home in which Jews from other lands will always End a welcome.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: After hearing the very simple solution of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), that we should clear out of Palestine, I began to wonder whether there was any need for this Debate at all. I am quite certain that the Government feel that they have a far more difficult problem to deal with than that. I would like to add my protest to that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), about the way in which the solutions proposed by the Government have been put before us today, the way, in fact, in which the whole of this Palestine problem has been dealt with by the Government since the Foreign Secretary's statement, last November. At that time, we were asked not to speak about this matter, not to ask any questions for fear that we would arouse feeling in Palestine. Then came the Debate in February, and at that time it was also considered by many to be unwise that we should say what we thought, because it might in some way affect delicate negotiations. The next Debate was forced on us by the arrests of members of the Jewish Agency.
Tonight, we find ourselves still in a position of great difficulty in trying to bring forward concrete suggestions after having had only a very brief notice of the plans which the Lord President of the Council announced and which, no doubt, he knew about a long time ago, certainly several days ago. The nearest thing we have had to anything of detail has come from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), who pointed out how similar were the Government's proposals to those which were put forward by an official to the Anglo-American Committee. All that was told us there is that the Jews will have control of certain parts of the country in which there are a large number of Arabs. I remember, after the last war, the refusal of the Danes to take any parts of Germany from the Germans, because they did not want to have a huge and unwilling minority in their area. Will the Jews be blamed if they do not like this new proposal? They are not even in the position of the Danes, living in their own country. They are—and many seem to forget it—from many other parts of the world. They are not Jews from one nation, who have been, all along, in

Palestine. They have come from many places. We have been treating them recently as if they were a Colony. When people talk about atrocities and fighting and resistance among them they are inclined to think of them as being British people who are doing these dreadful things, whereas vast numbers have never been to Britain in their lives, and know nothing of Great Britain, except the officials they see in Jerusalem and the troops we send to that country. People are apt to forget that.
The Jews are to be asked to take in Arabs without themselves being a proper nation as yet. I am certain it will not be possible, or feasible. Nor do I think that the Arabs will accept this suggestion. They are to be given a lot of money, I understand, and I would like the Minister who is to reply to the Debate to give us some idea as to whether the Arab States around Palestine are not themselves quite well off at the present time. The Jews presumably, are not to be given money, because they can get it from Jewish relations and friends in Great Britain and America. The Arabs, it is suggested, are always poor. But are they so poor? I think they have done better, since the 1914 war, than people in many other countries, and certainly as well as the Jews in what has been given to them in Palestine. Furthermore, what have they done for us in return? Certainly, less than the Jews. Be that as it may, I am certain that the solutions which have been presented to us today will not be acceptable to either side, and that we shall be faced with as difficult a position in a few months, or weeks, as we have been in the more recent past.
That brings me to refer briefly to a similar situation in which I was brought up as a child. I lived in Ireland during the difficult days at the end of the 1914–18 war, and immediately after it. Home Rule was given to Ireland before the beginning of that war, but it was put aside for some time; because it was put aside, the whole of the Redmondite Party completely lost its influence in Ireland, and because of that, and that alone, the I.R.A. got its start. There is' a similar position today in Palestine. The Labour Party have promised, and made every Jew in Palestine believe, that when they got into power they would give everything to the Jews, but since coming into power they


have procrastinated, and by their procrastination have made people very desperate.
I believe that the more one studies the Jewish Agency, and what it has done and tried to do in the past, the more one will come to the conclusion that the main reason it is now fast losing its hold is that the British Government have for too long promised something and not given it. To my mind, the Jewish Agency soon will have completely lost control, and everything will be in the hands of the terrorists; there will be the same situation as with the I.R.A. in Ireland after the 1914–18 war. I remember that as a boy I was highly indignant because, although I was known to be a Loyalist, I had to have to walk along the road with a gun at my back because I was out in Dublin after the curfew time. Many people had far worse things than that done to them, because the Black-and-Tans and others did not always have time to go into details, but swept in people who were loyal to this country, and thus made in Ireland vast numbers of enemies who are only now, after 20 or 30 years, beginning to become friendly to this country again, largely because of the Nazi horrors and because they got more angry with the Germans. During the war, when I was serving in Northern Ireland, it was heartbreaking to find people who might have been on our side if only we had acted differently.
All this we have to think of in regard to Palestine. As has been mentioned already, there is always the possibility that, in the years to come, we shall need Palestine from the strategic point of view. The final thing to be remembered about the Irish situation is that, in the end, the solution of having partition was brought about really because of our need for friendship with the United States and because of the pressure that was brought to bear by the United States. Today, there seems to be a somewhat similar situation. In the end we shall find ourselves in a much more difficult position because we have not had the courage to come to a decision and get on with the job before so many people were killed. Anti-Semitism is undoubtedly growing very fast in this country, and it ought to be stopped. I refuse to believe that all these atrocities, horrible and disturbing though they are, and though our troops

are suffering them, are the responsibility of all Jewry in Palestine. I maintain that if the Jews had been properly backed by the British Government, and if the British Government's promises had been carried out, there would have been none of this whatsoever. Therefore, I am inclined to think that the Labour Government have a great deal of responsibility, and will have more responsibility, if they do not take care, for the troubles in that country at the present time.
There has been very little reference to the Christians in Palestine. Why should not the Christians be in control of the country? We went there and fought in the Crusades in the old days in order to take that country from the Arabs and keep it for Christianity. We have now got it. Many of us were proud when Allenby marched in early after the last war; today everybody is talking about giving the country to the Arabs and the Jews. I maintain that it is our Christian duty to keep that country, to look after it, and to make it possible for Jews to go there. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Bristol said that 30 years is long enough after the Balfour Declaration to show that the Balfour dream will not work. How can 30 years be enough? For 1,000 years the Arabs have been there. For 2,000 years the Jews have been wandering. How can it be possible for them to settle down, to get to know each other and to agree in 30 years?
We must remember also that the troubles in Europe have made things ten times worse. We must remember the hundreds of thousands of Jews in Europe who have gone through hell. One hundred thousand of them could be allowed into Palestine; I believe that would be possible and I think it is our bounden duty. The Vatican has shown over a period, and the Archbishop of Canterbury has shown in the last two or three days, that Christians, and especially Christian prelates can take a very great interest and have a very great concern for the Jews of the world. Let us as a country not be afraid to face up to the difficulties which I believe are definitely ahead and try to apply a little today the lessons of what happened over Ireland. We must remember that it is the duty of a Christian country, when it has been given an area like Palestine


with such a past, to do all it can to bring in and look after as many Jews as possible—we believe that round about 100,000 is the possible number now—and to do everything possible to make them and the Arabs get on together, as I believe we can as time goes on. That would be my solution as far as there is any solution at the moment, but I would beg the Government to be more careful in what they do and in the way in which they deal with people in that country, and to realise that they are on the edge of a volcano which may mean very great dangers, not only for Palestine but for the whole of the Colonial Empire later on.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I did not intend to depart an inch from the statement made by the Lord President with regard to the solution before the House as "a basis of this discussion," but I could not let pass some of the statements made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). After all, he is the leader of the Liberals in this House and therefore holds a responsible position, and I am sorry to say that he has made statements which arc not historically correct. He began by referring to the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and saying practically that it meant nothing if it did not mean a Jewish State. I have studied this thing very minutely and it is a fact that before the Belfour Declaration was issued the political Zionists placed before the British Government various drafts in which they explicitly demanded a Jewish State or Commonwealth. The British Government rejected these drafts and passed the Balfour Declaration, which gave a promise of a Jewish National Home. The hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to base on that the plea that a Jewish State could be legally established in Palestine— at least that was the gist of his remarks. In the first place the Balfour Declaration was illegal and immoral if anything ever was. It was made without the knowledge of the Arabs, who were the inhabitants of Palestine and our loyal allies in the war, but worse still the people who framed the declaration had purposely concealed their intention that the Jews were to be allowed in until they formed a majority and thus to set up a Jewish State in fact.
The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned only the National Home, and I wish the National Home all success. When I was out in Palestine I often discussed the question with that fine Jew, Dr. Magnes, the principal of the Hebrew University, and although I argued against him he at least convinced me that cultural and religious Zionism can be a noble endeavour indeed, and I wish it all success. But from 1938 up to date, I have opposed in and out of season the proposal to set up a Jewish State in Palestine. No such State was ever promised by the British Government and indeed the British Government had no right to make promises about Jewish emigration to Palestine, and we have no right to try to set up a Jewish State in Palestine because Palestine never belonged to us and does not belong to us today.
The hon. and learned Gentleman made no mention whatever of the numerous concrete and definite proposals and promises made by us to the Arabs that they would be given their independence at the end of the first world war. I am not going through all those proposals and promises now since I have previously discussed them in the House. Apart from the illegality and immorality of the thing, in my opinion the worst thing we can do to the Jews of the world is to set up a Jewish State in Palestine. It is the bone of contention in Palestine and the main cause of the trouble, and until the request of the political Zionists for a Jewish State is abandoned there will be no peace in Palestine. As a friend of the Jews I appeal to all Jews in this House, some of whom are prominent in Jewish public life and take part in Zionist meetings, to throw in their lot with the Arabs in Palestine, and evolve a Palestinian state in which they would have an immense power for good.
I now come to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). He is in favour of partition, which means dividing Palestine into two or more independent States. As he said, I took a prominent part in destroying the scheme of partition which was accepted in principle by the Tory Government at the time Since then, that scheme has been abandoned. If the proposal to set up a Jewish State in the whole of Palestine would cause friction and is immoral, unjust and impracticable, the proposal to set up a Jewish State in


a part of Palestine is equally so. It would be a disastrous expedient, which has been condemned again by the Anglo-American Committee. It would be a breach of faith with the Arabs who were promised independence, and a breach of the Mandate, which specifically stated that self-government was its final object. The right hon. Gentleman stated that conciliation between Arab and Jew was impossible. I beg to state that I entirely disagree with that view. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) made a speech with which I did not fully agree, but there was one thing he said with which I did agree, and it is that the ordinary people of Palestine are longing for peace. If only these political differences could be removed I am sure that they would all be willing to live and work together. While the plan for a Jewish State in the whole of Palestine, or in only a part of Palestine, is under consideration, there tan be no peace in that country.
We are asked today, in an impromptu Debate, to discuss the material which has been placed before us by the Lord President of the Council. I have been for long mixed up with this affair. I spent seven months at it on one occasion, working 10 hours a day, and I understand its difficulties and intricacies. I would not for a moment pretend to express now any opinion on the proposals. We need to see the exact written word and to examine the details and also to have a thorough knowledge of the background and of the country before coming to any decision about it. I am glad that the proposal is only a "basis for discussion." That is a very wise proviso.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Lord President enunciated the doctrine, which pleases me greatly, that Arabs and Jews will be consulted before any decision is taken on these proposals. If Governments of this country in the past had consulted the Arabs at every stage, instead of enunciating a doctrine and imposing it upon Palestine without consulting the Arabs, Palestine would have been saved a lot of bloodshed. The Foreign Secretary has told us now that in North Africa the Senussi are to be consulted. At last we are coming to commonsense and justice. Why should people be trafficked with without being consulted?

Arabs and Jews are to be consulted, and I hope that those consultations will result in some good.
There is a proposal to try to provide for the differences between Arabs and Jews by setting up provinces under a central Government. I would like to see the boundaries of the provinces before coming to a decision. This device is a genuine attempt to get over the difficulty of the differences between Arab and Jew in Palestine. There is the question of minorities to be considered. That is a very serious question and a very formidable problem. We went into it thoroughly on the Partition Commission. Above all there is the question of boundaries. From the statement read out today it seems that there is to be a British enclave around Jerusalem and another in the Negeb in the south. What for, I have not the slightest idea. I am not condemning it, because I do not know why. It would be very rash for any hon. Member to come to an opinion on these proposals without further study.
I appeal to the Arabs, who are far away, to try to settle this problem at long last. There are representatives of the Jews—strong Zionists—in this House. I appeal to them—I am a friend of theirs —to try in their own interest to settle this problem by abandoning once and for all the demand for a Jewish State. I appeal to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner). He and I have often discussed it. We do not always agree but I have a profound respect for his sincerity. I beg Jews in this House who are the representatives of their people in their own interests to try to settle this problem by abandoning the demand for a Jewish State.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The only reason I dare speak on this subject, for I have no special knowledge, is that I have recently been in Palestine; though I have long taken a theoretical interest in it, and as a junior Minister sitting on the Front Bench I did something which is regarded as a serious thing—I abstained from voting on the 1939 White Paper. I did it because I had been to Europe and because I felt so horrified at the condition of the Jews and could see no finality to the Government policy. In February I


was in Jerusalem and had the experience of living there for nearly two months during a period when the terrorism was partly in process and partly withdrawn during the stay of the Committee. I say that my only reason for speaking is to try to convey in a few sentences a little of the atmosphere I found there. Unless the Colonial Secretary or some other Minister can make a defence of the Government, which I am prepared to believe they have got, the story of this last year demands some criticism.
The condition in Palestine in January was quite impossible. It was suspended civil war. It is not only the Irgun or these terrorist organisations, It is almost every boy and girl. We are dealing with the whole population. I will recount two stories. A Jewish lady who had been to an American university herself wanted her daughter to go to the same college. In my presence her daughter said, "Mother, you may go to America but I am not going. I am staying here. I am dying for my country." I have another story of a girl in one of the best settlements I visited, Ben Shemen. The Jew Dr. Lehmann, who ran that school, said, "That is my daughter passing by. You might think she was going to some college but she is going to the rockiest place in Palestine to start a new settlement and nothing I can do will stop her."
Transjordania has been given what is called independence, and I heard comments about that. People asked what it meant and made disparaging remarks about 300,000 Bedouins being looked after. They asked whether they could have some sort of consideration. Whatever the Committee reported, I believe it would have made little difference. I talked to Arab and Jewish leaders day after day. I visited about 15 settlements and many industries. During that time the Committee was partly in the country, and it was my experience that as the Committee receded there was a joke in Palestine, "Mercy for the Jews; Justice for the Arabs; Palestine for the British."
The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is, I am afraid, only too right in some of his remarks. Nobody has mentioned strategy today. Nobody has mentioned oil. Nobody has mentioned the one thing on which Arabs and Jews in the last six months have found common cause, and that was in the general strike

of Government employees. There are things far more subtle in our policy. From the beginning I have never believed that the Balfour Declaration was such a high-minded proposition. I have to say it. The longer I stayed in the Middle East, the more I felt it was a strategic question, and the hon. Member for West Fife deserves answers to some of the questions he put about strategy. When I was there, rumours were going round that we were building a base which would cost £3 million or £4 million in the Southern part of Palestine, and the Jews had to hear these rumours of vast constructive work going on. I had the definite feeling that the time had come when my countrymen ought not to stay in the country and be shot at. The hon. Member for West Fife said, "Clear out." I do not necessarily say that. I did not hear at that time one Jew say, "We want you to go." The reason was because, as the hon. Member for West Fife hinted, they feel not only that we are their protection, but, as they often say, they would be our protection.
If the future of Palestine is to be settled by the votes of millions of American citizens, and if the future of Palestine is to be affected so largely by outside influences, both Arab and British, I do not think there is any future at all. Until the last few days, I was wholly against any form of partitioning. I do not believe we have ever tried to make the Mandate work. We have two entirely separate worlds in education, and a fiery nationalism which was condemned by the Peel Report, was condemned by the Anglo-American Report, and is now condemned by the McNair Report which has come out within the last 24 hours. There is no common purpose. What is the good of talking about Canada or even of South Africa? There are two entirely different systems of education, two entirely different languages. No Arabic is taught in the Jewish schools and no Hebrew in the Arab schools. Do not let us fool ourselves.

Mr. S. Silverntan: There are not many Arab schools at all.

Mr. Lindsay: There are about 400 Arab schools, and to our eternal discredit, the Arabs themselves are paying for many of them. This is not a normal country, it is a police State. I thought they were


Colleges at first, but wherever one goes he sees these vast police posts. It is an impossible situation, and I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade that, if it was necessary for three Ministers to go to India, it is probably necessary for somebody to go to the Middle East before the situation gets hopeless. Hon. Members may think that is a rather foolish suggestion, but I would like to go further and lose the identity of party on this question. It would not be at all bad if somebody like the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) went with Members of the Government. I know hon. Members may say, "Precious little security for them if they did,"or" What a hopeless thing to do at this late hour."
I have a letter from a friend of mine in Tel-Aviv and he writes, trying to put a good face on it—this is only three weeks ago:
The sea-shore is thick with happy families bathing: Normal life may yet kill both the Army and the Hagana.
This is a British official writing. There are thousands of people in Palestine who can cooperate, Jews and Arabs. They cooperated to do a whole series of things in the war, because there was a common purpose. But now there is nothing left to cooperate about. I do not believe we ever tried to give responsibility. Time and again, as Dr. Magnes says, we made a half-hearted attempt. I think partition is a mistake, and we are only pushing the problem a little further aside. I speak with feeling on this, because anyone who has had the privilege and chance of going through that beautiful country, with its great scientific agriculture, its research work at Rehovoth, knows that trachoma is not the disease, tuberculosis is not the disease, cholera is not the disease—the disease is politics and fanaticism. Unless enlightenment can come in through some door, there is no hope. These young Jews will fight to the death in Hagana or Irgun.
I knew many of those officials who were killed in the King David Hotel. I beg, whether America comes in or does not—I only hope she will—that our Government should sound a new note. I wish the Colonial Secretary had gone out in the first month of office without his hat on,

like Gort, whose name was held in such high regard. When I was in hospital there, I thought the Jews were speaking of some local person, because of the sad look on their faces when they said they had lost him. That was simply because his character shone throughout the whole country like a good deed. Unless that sort of spirit can come back, unless education is not perverted to an entirely wrong use, as it is at the moment by both sides, there is no hope for Palestine, and no hope for the future of our name in the Middle East.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. S. N. Evans: It is all very well for hon. Members on both sides of the House to seek to lay the blame for recent happenings in Palestine on the Labour Government, but the fact is that for 25 years the problem of Palestine has been bedevilled by high powered, heavily subsidised propaganda and emotion, with a paucity of logic. Emotion is a very good petrol but a shockingly bad driver.
We have to warn those who failed to cooperate in apprehending murderers that events in the King David Hotel have their repercussions at King's Cross. For the first time in my experience, ordinary decent working men are talking in their pubs and clubs, at the barber's and at work, about the lot to which our lads are being subjected in Palestine at this moment. Reference has been made to some words uttered by a gallant and distinguished British soldier in the course of his duty. The hon. Member for Staly-bridge and Hyde (Mr. Lang), for whom I have considerable respect and, I may add, no little affection, said that this gentleman was guilty of vulgar anti-Semitism. With great respect, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde had no right to use words like that. It is all very well for gentlemen whose lives have been cast in pleasant ways, speaking from this reservoir of freedom and toleration, to criticise words used by soldiers labouring under great stress. But soldiers are not men of letters, coiners of slogans and catch phrases, word-spinners. Generally speaking, they are plain and simple persons.

Mr. Janner: Would my hon. Friend be good enough to read the actual words, and say whether they are reasonable?

Mr. Evans: I shall discuss them in the course of my speech. If we are to discuss the General's words, we must have regard to the background which evoked those words. Surely, it is the irony of ironies, and the epitome of ingratitude, that it is the men of Arnhem and of the Normandy beaches who are being subjected to these murderous attacks. I say ingratitude, because it is incontestible that without the courage and gallantry of these men, there would have been no Jewish problem in Europe and no Jewish home in Palestine.
It is a most unpleasant business to be hunted, stalked and ambushed by evilly disposed persons armed with sticks of dynamite, tommy-guns and other lethal weapons, a very unpleasant business indeed. I have had some. And it does not console the victims of these attacks to know that their assailants are Zionist gentlemen with political ambitions. Neither does it console their bereaved mothers and wives, our constituents. Had I fought with my regiment from the beaches of Dunkirk, via Alamein, Cassino, Normandy and Arnhem to victory, and had I, in the course of those six long years, had comrades who were now to be assassinated in a hole and corner manner in some Tel-Aviv back street, had that happened to me I fear that the General's words would have seemed temperate compared with what I would have been saying tonight.
To get this matter in the right perspective it is necessary brieflly to go over the background to this recent outbreak of violence. The background was that the British and American Governments, fully conscious of the difficulties surrounding a country in which 1,200,000 Arabs and half as many Jews lived, set up a committee to investigate and report. In due course that committee reported unanimously, and made several recommendations. The technicians, the experts, were then set to work to examine the mechanics of these recommendations, including the assimilation, transportation, housing, feeding, clothing and employment of the 100,000 persons it was thought desirable to evacuate from Europe.
That was the background, and it might have been thought that tranquility would reign, at any rate for the period in which these problems were being considered; but not so. An outbreak of violence unprecedented in ferocity was set in train, and in due course the British Government

were compelled to take the steps which they have taken. I do not think any one of us can discuss with profit the statement that was read out by the Lord President of the Council. I do not underestimate my powers—sometimes I am tempted to think I have got a fair degree of understanding—but I would not attempt to understand and to make a constructive contribution on the basis of the statement of the Lord President. I shall read it with great care and, in due course, if we are called upon to discuss it, I shall hope to make a contribution. Meanwhile, and I say this as one who in the comparatively short lifetime of this Parliament has twice felt compelled to vote against the Government—I hope it will not occur again, but, of course, it might—on this occasion I feel I should be lacking in courage and political honesty if I did not range myself behind the Government in the steps they have taken, and which I hope they will take, to protect the life and limb of our kith and kin in Palestine.

9.8 p.m.

Brigadier Low: I agree with so much of what the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) has said that I shall be able to put my few remarks to the House quite shortly. Today we have been discussing the question of Palestine under two broad headings. First, some hon. Members have brought to bear considerable knowledge and discussed the future scheme for Palestine. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Wednesbury, and with another of his hon. Friends, that it is very difficult to discuss the statement of the Lord President with any certainty in one's mind, having had only a few hours to study the scheme. If I may refer for a moment to what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) at the beginning of his excellent speech, he said that the two tests of any scheme for the future of Palestine, which stood a chance of success, were whether or not the scheme would reconcile Arabs and Jews and whether or not the schema had an element of finality in it. The chance of reconciliation seems to me to depend upon certain matters referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay), in particular upon the policy which we carry out on education. But it depends mainly


on the degree with which we are able to maintain law and order in that country, for there is no chance of reconciling Jews and Arabs as long as freedom from fear is absent from that country.
I want to say a word or two on the difficulty of restoring and maintaining law and order in that country today. We all know how the situation has deteriorated in the past six months. We know it has deteriorated so much that our troops there have now been given, we understand, full powers. I hope the Colonial Secretary will tell us whether or not they are full powers, or only modified powers, or whether they are restricted in any way. They have been given full powers to deal with the terrorists in the country. That task in peace time is a job which no soldier who has done it ever wishes to have to carry out again, and it is a job the difficulty of which cannot really be understood by those who have not done it. In war, a soldier's job is difficult and dangerous enough, but, in peace time, and when dealing with people in the countryside, friends and foes together, the task of the commander and the troops under him in dealing with a large terrorist organisation is indescribably more difficult. I hope hon. Members, particularly on the other side of the House, who have sometimes condemned actions by the troops, and, more frequently, by our commanders, will believe me when I say that. To use an expression which was used by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) earlier, when referring to the terrorists, it is very easy to condemn the general.
Now I want to refer to the letter of General Barker, the full text of which I do not believe any hon. Member has seen, and which I doubt if the Government have fully considered. Yet it is the letter on which some hon. Members have seen fit to condemn, out of hand, a high officer of the Army. Whatever words that officer has found it necessary to use, I venture to suggest that the error which he made is certainly no greater than the error of the hon. Member who stands up in this House and accuses a general of "vulgar anti-Semitism." Surely, it is the duty of all of us in this House to uphold the confidence which our troops, in this difficult situation, have in their commanders. I venture to suggest that the Lord President

has done little service to the country today, by announcing, before the Government have had time to look into this matter, that they dissociate themselves from the terms of that letter. Until we are told the terms which the general used in that letter, until we have seen the words which he actually used and until we know the contents of the letter, and the circumstances in which it was written how can we condemn the general or dissociate ourselves from the letter? The matter certainly seems to require explanation, as I think many hon. Members would agree. Some of the explanation has been given by the hon. Member for Wednesbury, but we do not know the conditions of strife and difficulty under which the troops and their commanders are still working in that country, and we surely cannot explain the General's words completely until we do.
I hope that, as the result of the opinion which the Government seem to have formed upon General Barker's action, they are not going to make it more difficult for our troops in Palestine to carry out their job, by restricting their powers and by hamstringing their commanders. I do not know whether they have appointed any man with great political knowledge to assist our commanders in Palestine in the same way as our commanders-in-chief during the war had Ministers of State or political advisers to assist them. If they have not, it might be well worth their while to consider the wisdom of appointing someone with great political knowledge and understanding of the peoples with whom the generals in Palestine are dealing, so that the burden of any commander out there may be lightened, and so that, if the Government do find that mistakes have been made, such mistakes shall not be repeated.
Having dealt with the Army, I will now refer to a point mentioned in many of the speeches made today and particularly by the hon. Member for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman)—How far do the needs of strategy play their part in the actions and decisions of His Majesty's Government when dealing with the problem of Palestine at the present time? The hon. Gentleman, in what I thought was a rather over-modest way, declined my invitation to him to set himself up as an expert on strategy. I do not pretend to be one myself, but I did think that he would tell the House that he had certain views


about strategy, because he has written a book, entitled "A Palestine Munich," in which he has argued that it would be most unwise in any way to restrict the immigration of Jews into Palestine. In the course of the argument, contained in page 29 of that book, he says that if we restrict the immigration of Jews, the Arabs will get so strong that they will come to us and ask us to remove ourselves from Palestine. He then says:
The last base of the defence of Suez would have gone.
It is no part of the policy of any of my hon Friends that the defence base of the Suez Canal should be in Palestine; in fact, I remember my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition roundly condemning such action in the course of the Debate on Egypt. It is certainly very regrettable, to say the least of it, that, if, as a result of our curious method of negotiating in Egypt, we have put ourselves in the position of having to keep large forces in Palestine.
Perhaps I may say a few words on the general and wider subject of the future of Palestine. Just as, in my view, law and order is essential in order to bring about a chance of reconciliation between Jew and Arab, so that the suspicion, fear and mistrust which they now have of one another may be uprooted, so it is essential, in order that there may be some chance of governing the country and maintaining law and order, that His Majesty's Government must have, and declare, their future aim in regard to Palestine. As so many hon. Members have said, it is largely because of the procrastination and delay, brought about by whatever cause, that the situation in Palestine has deteriorated so rapidly during this year. The proposals put to us today will need to be studied. They will be studied by hon. Members of this House and, as other proposals were studied in India, by the people to whom they refer. Just as in India, no proposals will be of any avail unless they are accepted by the parties concerned.
Therefore, these proposals will be of no avail unless Jew and Arab accept them. By "Jew and Arab," I believe we mean the opinion of world Jewry and of the Arab League and the Arab world. Much emphasis has been laid upon the consultations with world Jewry. I have heard far too little of consultations with

Arab opinion. I am sorry that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is not here today. I regret his illness as much as others in this House. He has more than once reminded this House that Palestine is part of the Middle East. No decision can be reached unless we bear in mind that the Arabs in Palestine are culturally connected with the Arabs who live around them, that the economics in Palestine must be connected with the economics of the Middle East, and we can never exclude the fact that the strategic interests of Palestine, whether they be British, Arab or universal, are connected with the surrounding country. I hope that, in due course, the Jews and the Arabs will come to the council table with His Majesty's Government, and will discuss these and any other proposals which may be submitted, for I am convinced that only by discussion and by getting a conciliatory atmosphere, can we get down to the real problem of producing a scheme for the future of Palestine, which will meet with the general consent of Jews and Arabs in Palestine and of all peoples throughout the world.

9.22 p.m.

Colonel Wigg: There are one or two aspects of the Palestine problem which have a significance beyond the problem itself. There are Members of this House who think that if we could remove all the Jews from Palestine the Arabs would then settle down and live a life of peace and harmony with themselves and with us, but I believe that the experiences during the period between the wars and, indeed, during the war itself do not bear out that suggestion. The Colonial Office was responsible for the administration of Iraq from the time when General Maude captured Baghdad onwards, and the history of what has happened in Iraq does not support the view that if there had not been a Jewish problem, the Arabs would welcome our administration. Indeed, during the war the Iraqi Arabs seized the opportunity to try to take their affairs into their own hands. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not? "] I am not arguing that they should not have done so. I am trying to establish the point that the solution to the Arab problem does not depend upon the elimination of the Jews.
The point I want to make over and above that, is that the Colonial Office administration of Palestine is called in


question by what the hon. and gallant Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) called the breakdown of law and order. It is true that there is a breakdown of law and order, and that points to the fact that there has been a failure on the part of the civil administration. The soldier is not called in to carry out a policing function with the aid of tanks and similar weapons until the civil authority has failed to discharge its duty. I think the Government, as a whole, bear a responsibility which they cannot avoid merely by calling in Field-Marshal Montgomery or using his prestige, when a military commander, faced with an impossible situation—to use an expression of my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans)—acts indiscreetly. The commander there is called upon to deal with 70,000 or 80,000 men armed with mortars, and certainly other light weapons, with what is probably an inadequate force. He is forced to take action under instructions from the Government at home, and he is asked to handle it in such a way as not to cause a violent reaction of public opinion, not only to this country but also in the United States. It is a frightful thing to ask the soldier to do a job that the civil administration has failed to do without giving him adequate means for carrying it out.
I now turn for a moment to some of the events of the past few weeks, from which the Government cannot escape responsibility. The Foreign Secretary, speaking in Bournemouth, used these words:
If we put 100,000 Jews into Palestine tomorrow I will have to put another division of British troops there. I am not prepared to do it 
It is true to say that, although he is not prepared to put the 100,000 Jews into Palestine, the extra division is there. It is there, I suggest, because the Government are not fully informed as to what is happening. I am as sure as a private individual can be of the kind of advice the Government are getting. I have no doubt they are being told that troops are straining at the leash, that positive action has got to be taken, and orders are given accordingly. I do not believe such advice is wholly true. I have a letter from a private soldier, a constituent of mine, who expresses ad-

miration for what he calls "the guts of the Jews." He goes on to make the point—and this is one of his worries, and one of the worries of other private soldiers serving in Palestine—that if, as a result of American opinion, we have to put 100,000 Jews into Palestine, then let American troops come and help to enforce law and order. His Majesty's Government ought not to be so tender to American opinion.
If it be that there have to be four, five, or six divisions in order to put 100,000 Jews into Palestine, quite clearly we have not got the extra divisions to put there. Let us be honest about it and say to the Americans: "A generation ago we gave two irreconcilable promises. As men of integrity we are seeking a solution which will enable us to carry out our obligations. The fact is, if we do what you want and put these 100,000 Jews into Palestine, it can only be done by force, and we have not the military capacity to put that into operation." That seems to me to be the honest way of stating the problem.
I hope His Majesty's Government will not seek to hide behind the kind of solution which the Lord President of the Council put across this afternoon. It is not new, and it leaves the Government open to the charge that what has been put forward today could have been put forward a year ago. I quite agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Blackpool, that the first job is to enforce law and order. The parallel is what happened in Ireland. In short, we have to secure an armistice before any solution is possible. It is quite improper to ask the military commander on the spot, or, indeed, the High Commissioner, to tackle what is, after all, a political problem. May I remind the House of what happened during the war? In the Mediterranean theatre we had Field-Marshal Alexander, a soldier of very great experience and a man of affairs. Yet attached to his staff—perhaps I am putting it a little crudely—there was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) to advise on political affairs. I suggest very earnestly that a Member of the Government of Cabinet rank should go out and seek a solution in Jerusalem. That is where this problem will have to be solved. It cannot be solved by asking British troops to pay


the price for the political mistakes which are the consequence of the mistakes of policy in the past.

9.30 p.m.

Major Tufton Beamish: I am glad to have this opportunity of making a short contribution to this Debate, especially as I have some very small knowledge of Palestine, having served there during the 1938 troubles as a regular soldier and, during that period, having made many friendships with Jews and Arabs. I apologise if what I say is somewhat disjointed, but I do not wish to go on as long as I originally intended, in view of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak. First of all, I want to appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, and particularly on the opposite side, to cast aside what I might call woolly thinking and sentimentality. There has been too much of that altogether in connection with this problem. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why exclusively this side?"] I did not say exclusively that side. I believe the terms of reference of the Committee were wrong, in that they confused the plight of the Jews in Europe—for which we all feel very much—with the actual future of Palestine under British mandate. The two problems cannot be entirely separated, but they should not be confused to that extent.
In Poland, for example, out of some four million Jews before the war, only 80,000 are supposed to be alive in Poland today, apart from some 200,000 or 300,000, according to official Polish figures, who have had an enforced stay at the invitation of Marshal Stalin in Siberia since 1939. I have been to Auschwitz and I know of the appalling and incredible suffering of the Jews there, and of the Poles themselves, and we are all desperately sorry for the plight of the Jews in Europe. As another example, many hon. Members in the past, and I think even today, have stressed the fact that some 26,000 Palestinian Jews, most of whom were members of Hagana, volunteered for the British Forces during the war, and there have been people who have been only too quick to compare that with the number of Arabs who volunteered. To my way of thinking, that is an extraneous issue. I know, too, of the rising in the Warsaw Ghetto, about which very little is known. I have actually seen the space in Warsaw where thousands upon

thousands of Jews lost their lives before General Bor's rising, a space, which now has not one brick standing upon another, about two miles wide by one mile. About 400,000 out of the 600,000 Jews in Palestine are supposed to have close relations now in Europe among 1,500,000 survivors, and I imagine it would be also true to say that almost every one of the 1,500,000 survivors could claim to have a relation in Palestine. We all admire the Jewish contribution to the war effort, and we have great sympathy with their sufferings, but neither our admiration nor our sympathy should be allowed to fog the issue of the problem of Palestine. That is the first point I want to make.
Next, I want to draw a contrast between the behaviour of the Arabs from 1936–1939 and the behaviour of the Jews since V.J. Day. It was reliably estimated that in 1938 some two-thirds of the Arab population were supporters of Haj Amin Husseini, the Grand Mufti, and perhaps the other third were supporters of Fakri Bey Nashashibi. The number of armed Arabs was never large, several hundreds perhaps, a thousand at the most, and most of them came from Syria under the command of Aref Abdul Razzek and under the direct orders, of course, of the Grand Mufti.
The population as a whole, however, were not behind the Arab rising. I know this very well, and I can tell hon. Members from my own experience, that the greatest difficulty one had, as an officer, in those days was to maintain discipline, which was excellent in itself, amongst one's men, because so soon as they were left alone they would be making friends with the Arabs which, at that moment, was incompatible with their duty. One would find them playing with the kids at the very time when there were armed gangsters in the vicinity. We never lacked Arab helpers in those days, and there were very few villages, indeed, to which one went—and other hon. Members who were there will bear me out—where one was not offered a cup of coffee or a glass of arrack, which was better still.

Mr. John Lewis: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman say how many Jews were killed in that period?

Major Beamish: The hon. Gentleman can easily find out for himself. I am not an encyclopaedia to inform him.

Mr. J. Lewis: There is no need to be rude about it.

Major Beamish: On the Jewish side of the picture, we all know that from 1936 to 1939 Hagana openly collaborated with the Palestine police, and, indeed, we actually formed a Jewish Settlement police, and organised, armed and trained them. They took full advantage of that fact. In 1940, we saw the secession of the two terrorist movements. Recent events have shown, as all hon. Members know, close collaboration between the two terrorist groups and Hagana, and, worst of all, between them and the Jewish Agency, the latter fact not coming as a surprise, I may say, to any of those of us who kept closely in touch with the situation. But this is the point I wish to draw from this: The activities of the Jewish terrorists in Palestine would now be absolutely impossible had they not got the backing of the very large majority of the Jewish population. I do not think that we should lose sight of that fact in considering this whole matter. Let us, therefore, give our wholehearted support to the actions of the General Officer Commanding in Palestine, and ignore such irresponsible outbursts as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman)—whom I see in the House but not in his place—in questioning the Prime Minister last week.
I want to say a word or two about the Palestine Police, who have been mentioned so far today only in passing. The British section of the Palestine Police was some 1,000 strong in 1936. My figures are only approximate. In 1938 it was about 3,000 strong. When the war came about 75 per cent. of the personnel who had been Regular soldiers—that is, the large majority of them—wished to volunteer to return to their own regiments to take a more active part in the war. Hon. Members may not know this, but it is a fact to which I attach importance. In order to get away, after being conscripted, many of them—a considerable number of them—laid down their arms and refused to do duty; and as a result they were confined for one month or three months—for varying periods—in Acre prison, and were then repatriated via South Africa, where many of them were welcomed by the South African Forces, only to find themselves back in Palestine either as warrant officers or with commissions. Hon. Mem-

bers will understand how that caused some discontent, to say the least of it, in the Palestine Police.
In 1944, the Police Mobile Force was formed, a striking force with police powers, and when this was formed—I say this as a soldier—all the plum jobs— without exception, all the best jobs—were given to Regular soldiers, who were put over the heads of extremely experienced Palestine policemen with twice their service. I do not think that that was right. The British section is, I believe, nearly 50 per cent. under strength—it may not be quite 50 per cent., but I believe that it is well over 25 per cent. under strength. At the present time we can see a poster campaign being conducted in this country for recruitment, and there is a recruiting headquarters in Victoria Street. I think we are entitled to know from the Government whether the outstanding questions of the award of medals and pensions and the questions of pay and gratuities, which have been worrying the personnel of the Palestine police for many months since the end of the war, have been satisfactorily settled, whether the right sort of men are now coming forward, and whether they are being offered proper conditions of service in that Force.
Like other hon. Members, I resent the way in which this Debate has been conducted. This extremely important plan, with its far-reaching results, has been sprung on us at a moment's notice. It has not given us an opportunity to consider it. Like other hon Members, I maintain that it is wholly impossible to discuss the details of the plan in the Debate today or tomorrow. I think that is a pity. I wish to give three short quotations. I consider that the Government, among other things, should base their future action on these quotations. I wish to quote, first of all, from the "Summary of the Arab Point of View," which was presented to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry by the Arab office. It states:
The Arabs of Palestine are descendants of the indigenous inhabitants of the country, who have been in occupation of it since the beginning of history; they cannot agree that it is right to subject an indigenous population against its will to alien immigrants, whose claim is based upon historical connections which ceased effectively many centuries ago.
To my way of thinking, that is hard to controvert. It puts it concisely. The


second quotation is from the first of the ten recommendations of Chapter I of the Committee's Report. In the second sub-paragraph, I read:
But Palestine alone cannot meet the emigration needs of the Jewish victims of Nazi and Fascist persecution. The whole world shares responsibility for them and indeed for the resettlement of all 'Displaced Persons.' We therefore recommend our Governments together, and in association with other countries "—
I would emphasise that—
should endeavour immediately to find new homes for all such 'Displaced Persons,' irrespective of creed or nationality, whose ties with their former communities have been irreparably broken.
Finally, I would quote what the Foreign Secretary said at the recent Labour Conference. This quotation is taken from its context, but I do not think the sense is altered as a result:
For my part I cannot bring myself to accept the theory that has been adumbrated in America and elsewhere that because a man is a Jew he must be hounded out of Europe to some other country. My goal as Foreign Secretary is to bring him back again, after all the terror that he has had, on terms of equality with the other citizens throughout Europe.
I am glad to find in brackets the word "Applause." Arising from these quotations, and because of the fundamental principles contained in them, I do not believe that the proposals which the Government have put forward today will work smoothly. In Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, under which our Mandate was granted, the words "sacred trust" are mentioned. I would say that the onus is as much on Arab and Jew, as on the people of this country, to preserve that sacred trust, by avoiding the extremes of nationalism and prejudice, and I would say, too, that it rests as much on Arab and Jew as it does on the United Nations as a whole. I am more than doubtful whether the Government's plan can work, because I feel that it fails to carry out the sacred trust so far as the Arabs are concerned.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Lever: It is with some diffidence that I join with other non-experts on this subject in the Debate, but there are a few remarks which I feel ought to be addressed to the House about it. I have never myself been a Jewish nationalist. I have never supported extreme nationalism in

Palestine on in Great Britain. I hold no brief for the Jewish Agency leaders in much of their propaganda, particularly that adopted in the United States and in this country, and particularly that which merely contents itself with being anti-British, and which has been used in the United States largely to encourage popularity. Still less have I any sympathy with the villainies of the terrorists of the extreme national movement in Palestine. I am somewhat sickened at the mealy-mouthed hypocrisy which permeates the atmosphere whenever the terrorists are discussed in this House. These terrorists are villainous, stupid and unbalanced people. If anyone is responsible for the deaths of Jews, Arabs and Englishmen in Palestine, it is those who have fomented the desperation of these terrorists, and encouraged their extreme nationalist ambitions, without any hope of their being fulfilled. When we have played on the hopes of a tortured people and encouraged desperate young men in their ambitions, it will not do to come into this House and satisfy ourselves in a smug way by merely rebuking them with some pious generalisations about law and order.
In case any hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House think that I am referring exclusively to hon. Members on the Government Front Bench, I would gently refer them to the speeches made by political leaders of all the main political parties in this country, including the Leader of the Opposition, and Prime Ministers who, over the years, have encouraged all these Jews in Palestine and in Europe to hold these views and, finally, when their hopes are frustrated, fail to meet the dreadful disasters that have taken place. I claim the right to concern myself about the safety of the British Tommy. [Interruption.] I think that sometimes some hon. Members think that their vociferations are a substitute for a war record. I take the view that anyone who really cares about the interests of the British soldier in Palestine, is not content with cheering on the kind of stupidity which will lead to further bloodshed and deaths. I hold the view that it is sometimes contemptible for hon. Members of this House to attack generals or civil servants for carrying out a general policy. But General Barker was not carrying out the Government's policy when he issued the stupid, inflammatory and insulting message to his commanders which he did. I hold the view that per-


haps now that the Government have disassociated themselves from his remarks and indicated that appropriate action is being considered, the best thing that hon. Members can do is to suggest alternative posts for this general.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it correct to criticise the action of general officers commanding troops in a situation such as this?

Mr. Speaker: I thought that matter had been referred to already from both Front Benches.

Mr. Lever: I can understand that there may be hon. Members on both sides of this House who resent conducting this Debate on an adult level. They prefer, the moment that anyone criticises a general or other brass hat, to suggest that it is out of Order or that it is stupid. Normally, when a general is carrying out a policy which he is ordered to carry out by the Government, only a fool or a knave would venture to hurl abuse at his head. This general has gone far beyond that. Without thought of the consequences, he has been guilty of an act of grave irresponsibility which will inflame the situation there, and cause loss of life and embittered feelings which cannot be in the interests of our soldiers.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not a fact that this letter of General Barker's was not for publication, that it was privately sent to his divisional commanders?

Mr. Lever: The letter was not to inflame the population of Great Britain, but the officers under his command. If that point appeals to my hon. Friend, then let him have it.

Mr. Stokes: It does not.

Mr. Lever: I thought I was making a helpful suggestion in saying that something in the way of an inarticulate post would be in the interests of the general, and would show him to the best advantage.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: On a point of Order. Surely, it is contrary to the traditions of this House, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that a general officer commanding sent a letter for the purpose of inflaming his officers?

Mr. Speaker: I did not quite gather that point of Order.

Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Member has just said that General Barker wrote a letter for the purpose of inflaming his officers. I put it to you, Sir, that that is quite contrary to the tradition of this House, to make an attack of that nature on a G.O.C. commanding troops, especially at this moment.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot rule that an attack on an officer commanding troops is out of Order; it may be out of taste, but it is not out of Order.

Earl Winterton: Further to that point of Order. Is it not a fact, Sir, that on many occasions your predecessors, while giving the same Ruling as you have just given, strongly deprecated attacks being made on a general, or anyone else, who could not answer in this House? Is it not, therefore, desirable, in all the circumstances of this Debate, which is sufficiently inflammatory, that Members should be induced to depart from attacking someone who cannot defend himself?

Mr. Speaker: That is entirely a matter of opinion. If the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Lever) chooses to go on like that, that is his affair. It is not out of Order, so far as I am concerned.

Mr. S. Silverman: When a Member is dealing with the case of a G.O.C. in a difficult situation, who has published a letter which was—

Mr. Stokes: Stolen and published.

Mr. Silverman: —written to some of his officers, a letter which, in some people's opinion, is inclined to do harm, and when the Government have stated that in doing so he was not carrying out his instructions, are not Members entitled to comment upon that action?

Mr. Speaker: The question is whether that letter was published or not, or whether it was more or less a private instruction to some of his intimate officers under his command. Personally, I deprecate interfering with an officer who is responsible for a very difficult situation, and criticising his action when we do not know all the facts of the case.

Mr. Lever: I shall not pursue the matter further, Sir. In any case, I did not intend


to make more than a passing reference to it. Now I come to this point. Are Members on both sides who, in my submission, share responsibility for the unbalanced state of mind which has led terrorists to do shocking acts, content to shelve their responsibility by hurling at each other a collection of clichés about these young terrorists, or do they intend honestly to get together to try to find a solution which will be of a constructive nature? I appeal to my right hon. Friends who form a majority in the Cabinet. When I was going around expressing a considerable less popular view among the Jews of this country and elsewhere, and when I was being criticised for it, those right hon. Gentlemen were basking in the glow of warm admiration by encouraging sentiments and hopes which they had no expectation of fulfilling. I understand that a tendency to hardened conscience is a well-recognised occupational disease among Cabinet Ministers, but is it too much to hope that the process is not sufficiently far advanced to make them lose sight of their grave responsibility to the Jews in Palestine, as well as to the Arab population?
We ought to be a little more candid in this House and outside as to what is our object in Palestine. It is no good deploring the fact that outside this House, relations between Jew and Gentile are being made worse because of terrorist action in Palestine. It is no good deploring it unless you explain to the British people where the responsibility lies for the events in Palestine, why you are there, and what you propose to do about it. Why are we in Palestine? Let us be clear about our purpose. Are we in Palestine as trustees for the local population? I am as much concerned for the welfare of the Arab population as for the Jewish. Are we there because we need a strategic base? Do not say that we are there as trustees if we are there mainly for strategical reasons, or to secure our oil supplies, or even to improve the value of oil company shares. Do not be mealy-mouthed. Do not give windy lectures to the exasperated Jews who have temporarily lost their reason. Be honest about it, and tell them within what limits they can have votes, or no votes at all. I feel a little sorry that the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) did not have a chance to speak today, because he would probably have made a

realist approach to this subject, from the Tory point of view. I think that is often to be preferred to the more dishonest moralising that one so often hears on this subject. If we are in Palestine as trustees for the Jewish and Arab populations, let us be quite clear that our actions are solely conditioned by their welfare. It is rather a novel interpretation of trusteeship action for one trustee to lock up another and to assault the beneficiaries. This is something that is novel to me, speaking as a lawyer, in the interpretation of trusts. That applies whether one is dealing with the Jews or the Arabs.
Right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench have entered into a conspiracy of impartiality in which they say that there are the wild Jews and the wild Arabs, and the poor British Government between is struggling to be an honest trustee for all. May I make a suggestion to any hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who feel themselves in a difficulty as to how to be trustees? Two courses are open to a bewildered trustee. One is to resign, and the second is to go to the court. In this case, in my submission, the appropriate action is to go to the only court available, the United Nations, and submit the matter to them in order that the weight of world opinion will be behind the solution, whatever it may be, and, in so far as this country has a legitimate right, in the interests of its safety, to be in Palestine, to have that right safeguarded by the United Nations. It is only right that these frank words should be spoken, because nobody outside the House, and nobody in any other country, takes at their face value the protestations that are being made. We are not adding either to the British reputation or to the chances of a peaceful solution in Palestine by the kind of action we have pursued, encouraging Arab nationalism on the one hand and Jewish nationalism on the other hand. We are not adding to the chances of a peaceful solution in Palestine. Certainly, we are not doing anything that will benefit the interests in this country in that area.
May I say a word or two about the question of partition? I believe that the partition of Palestine is rightly to be described as a counsel of despair. Only if we are satisfied that the essential minimum needs of both the Jewish and Arab


communities cannot be reconciled are we entitled to contemplate partition? What are the essential Jewish demands in Palestine? They are that the community there should live peacefully and that they should have the right to bring in large numbers of their brethren in Europe. What is the essential minimum Arab demand in Palestine? It is that the Arabs should enjoy political equality, that they should not be subjugated by an alien minority, that they should not be the victims of any National State which would deprive them of their political rights, as a Jewish State or a Jewish majority would seem to do in their eyes. I do not believe that those essential minimum demands are irreconcilable. I do not believe that the Jews and Arabs could not get together to make a workable union in Palestine, provided that Britain acted as trustee and in the interests of both the Jewish and the Arab population. One thing I am completely convinced about is that the aim of trusteeship is to help the people of Palestine. That is what we want. If that is so—and that is what we all say—

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — HIGHWAY CODE

10.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. G. R. Strauss): I beg to move,
That the Highway Code, prepared by the Minister of Transport under Subsection (1) of Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a copy of which Code was presented on nth July, be approved.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The hour of ten o'Clock arrived before the hon. Member who was speaking in the previous Debate had sat down. The Debate was taking place on the Motion for the Adjournment. Are we to understand that not only can the Highway Code be debated, but also the Prayers which are on the Paper as well?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly. We go on now with the Orders of the Day. All this is exempted Business, with which we carry on. Is that the point on which the hon. Member wanted a Ruling?

Mr. Bowles: Having been on the Adjournment since half-past three, and ten o'Clock having passed without the Question being put, are we allowed now to go on with the Adjournment, or can we go back to Government Business and then take the Prayers afterwards?

Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment lapsed at ten o'Clock. Therefore, we now go on to the exempted Business. When that is finished—I do not know at what hour—we shall go on to the extra half-hour of the final Adjournment.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Road Traffic Act, 1930, imposes an obligation on the Minister of Transport to prepare a Highway Code for the guidance of all road users, and it also imposes on the Minister an obligation to revise that code whenever he considers it desirable, to publish it, and to sell it to the public at a price not greater than 1d. It is necessary for the Minister, before he publishes and distributes the code, to get the approval of Parliament. That was in the Road Traffic Act of 1930 and with notable speed my right hon. Friend, who was then Minister of Transport, published the first Highway Code a few months afterwards in 1931. It was revised in 1935, but because of the war it has not been revised since and I think everyone connected with traffic problems considers that it is high time we had an up to date Highway Code.
The Select Committee in another place, called the Alness Committee, which considered a variety of road traffic matters, recommended that as soon as possible a new Highway Code should be produced and that it should form the basis of an intensive propaganda campaign for road safety. That proposal was accepted by the Road Safety Committee in their Interim Report published in December, 1944, and that Committee recommended, moreover, that the new Highway Code should be made as attractive as possible. In drawing up this document we have attempted to make it so, and from the comments which we have received from the public, the Press, and elsewhere, we can say that our attempt to make it more readable and attractive than it was before has met with a considerable measure of success. Great care has been taken to make the advice and suggestions to road users as simple, incisive and easily read


as possible. Many new paragraphs have been inserted, comprising suggestions which have not previously appeared in the Highway Code, many of the old ones have been re-written in simpler and more direct form, and attached to the Highway Code there is a number of appendices which we think will be useful. There is also an exceedingly important table at the back telling the reader how long it takes him to pull up his vehicle under varying conditions of speed. Great trouble has been taken, moreover, in the general layout of the Highway Code and we have sought and obtained the help of the greatest experts in the design of the cover, the layout of the contents and the illustrations.
The document has been available to Members in the Vote Office for a little time now; it has been circulated previously to a very large number of organisations and associations who are interested in roads or road transport, many of whom have sent in suggestions. Many of those suggestions have been adopted, but generally we have received high commendation for this document and the opinion has been widely expressed that it will serve its purpose of giving people an easily read guide which will enable them to behave on the road with safety and thereby dimmish the appalling number of accidents which are taking place. The actual Code which we are asking the House to endorse is contained in pages 2 to 13 of the booklet which is before the House tonight. The remainder consists of appendices and a foreword which we think will be of value to readers, but it is not the actual Highway Code which the Minister is obliged to bring before this House for confirmation.

Mr. Henry Strauss: On a point of Order. The Minister has made a very important statement on which I desire your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I submit that, under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the terms of the Motion now before the House, the appendix to this document is part of the Code; and that if the House passes this Motion it will then not be in order for His Majesty's Government to alter a word in the appendix. If you desire arguments on that point, Sir, I think it will be sufficient to draw your attention to Rule 46, admittedly part of

the Code in the admission of the Minister, and to see that it there says:
See pages 29–30.
I submit that pages 29 and 30 are as much part of the Code, as are the numbered paragraphs at the beginning. These words which will be printed at the end, if this Motion is passed:
This Code is issued with the authority of Parliament.
apply to the appendix as well as to the numbered paragraphs and to the rules themselves. It is on that submission that I would welcome your Ruling.

Mr. Speaker: On that point—I do not know whether the Minister wishes to say a word on It—I must confess that, having read on the last page:
This Code is issued with the Authority of Parliament (Resolutions passed … 1946). A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind, but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under this Act) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish 01 to negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings,"—
this seems to me intended to distinguish the appendix from the Code itself. I have looked at the matter. I did not notice the paragraph which the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) read, but I looked at paragraph 75. It states:
Make sure that your cycle is in a fit condition to be used on the road, and in particular that the brakes act property. (See page 31.)
I looked at page 31. It is in the appendix. I see there:
A cycle is not in good condition if …the brakes are not fully effective,
and so on. All that is apparently part of this official document and submitted for the approval of Parliament. I do not know what the courts will say, but I am prepared to say that the whole thing must be taken as one.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: On that point of Order, I bow to your Ruling, of course, Sir. I submit, however, that the Code is only that part of the document which lays down various suggestions and injunctions and which is contained in pages 2–13, and that the remainder consists of a summary of legal provisions and of various ideas, for example about how to keep a bicycle


fit. I submit that it is perfectly proper in the Code to refer to some other document or to refer to the appendix. I submit finally that the actual Highway Code which the House is being asked to pass tonight consists solely of the injunctions on those pages.

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept those submissions. If the Code did not refer to any proceedings in the appendix, well and good, but as it refers to various paragraphs in the appendix I must say that the appendix is part of the Code.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: As far as I am concerned, Sir, I am happy about that matter. I am glad that you have clarified that point. This document, as I say, has had the scrutiny of a number of motoring and road organisations who have given their views, and have, on the whole, warmly endorsed it. Some of the suggestions which they have made have been incorporated in the Code and the words have been altered accordingly. After that, one or two hon. Members, and particularly the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has suggested to me certain verbal alterations which, in his opinion, would make the English of the Code or of the appendices better than it was before.
Many of those suggestions were in my view excellent and they have been adopted. Others, it appeared to me, did not improve the wording. In fact, they would have made the wording rather less clear afterwards than before if they had been accepted. But I agree wholeheartedly with his view that when we are issuing to the public a document of this sort, which will be distributed to every home in the country and which can be quoted in a court of law, we must take great care to see that the wording is as clear as can be. We have, however, to avoid the pitfall of making the wording of a document of this sort too pedantic. If it is really to be effective and read by every man and, we hope, every woman in the country, we have to render it in good strong vigorous colloquial English. That is very important and we believe that on the whole we have done that, although I am perfectly willing to admit here and now that there are some points to which my attention has been drawn, particularly in the Appendices, which

could be better worded grammatically. I submit at the same time that on the whole the English of this document is not only clear to any ordinary reader but that it is couched in vigorous, robust phraseology which is wholly desirable and which wholly achieves its purpose.
The only point on which there has been any dispute at all in regard to the substance of this Code is that we have not accepted the advice that some people have put forward—particularly the Alness Committee—that the Code should have the sanction of law; that it should in fact be a legal document and that anybody who did not abide by any of its provisions would be committing an offence. We have not accepted that advice for two reasons. One is that many of the suggestions contained in the Code would be wholly inappropriate for legal procedure. It would be quite wrong to give, them a legal sanction. I am perfectly certain that the House would protest most vigorously if we asked it to give legal sanction to many of the suggestions and opinions expressed in the Code. Secondly, if we did make this a document with a legal sanction behind it, it would have to be phrased in legal phraseology which certainly would not be comprehensible to the great mass of the people who it is hoped will read it.
If this House approves the Code, it will become one of the tests which the examiners of applicants for driving licences will impose when we set up our examination system in, we hope, the autumn. It is for that reason, amongst others, that we are most anxious to get this Code passed before we separate so that when the examiners start their work in the autumn the Code will be available and members of the public who desire to obtain driving licences can be examined on it and will have it in their possession.
Further, the Code will form the basis of our propaganda for road safety. Up to now we have been bound—and I think rightly—to have a general propaganda to draw the attention of the public to the dangers of the road and to try to induce them by general injunctions to realise how serious the situation was and to behave with greater safety on the road. We have been awaiting the issue of this Highway Code to change that policy and to go on to what we consider to be the far more


important part of our campaign, and that is to give precise instructions to the public based on the provisions of the Highway Code. We hope to be able early in the autumn to continue our propaganda campaign, which has had a very marked measure of success, on the basis of the instructions laid down in the Highway Code.

Earl Winterton: Does that include the propaganda which is already going on in the schools? Is it intended that in future this Code shall be used? Has the hon. Gentleman been in touch with the Minister of Education on that point?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Yes, we are in touch with the Ministry of Education on the very excellent work done in the schools, very largely by the Police Forces, and certainly the Highway Code will be used in the schools. Moreover, it will be used by the local authorities, most of whom are carrying on active road safety campaigns. The accident rate, in spite of all our efforts and of the efforts of the school authorities and the local authorities, continues at a high level, and there is no doubt a great deal more that can and should be done to bring down the toll of the roads. We believe that this document—which sets out in an attractive and an authoritative form the conduct which should be practised by every citizen in the country—will, when it is given wide distribution, materially advance our great national crusade to keep death off the roads.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Naylor: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether, in the event of the House passing the Highway Code as it is presented to us tonight, and in the probable event of certain hon. Members making suggestions during the discussion for improving the wording of the Code, it will be within the power of the Minister to adopt any of the suggestions that arise out of the discussions, or whether he is tied down by the fact that the House will have passed the Highway Code as presented tonight?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is perfectly clear that there can be no Amendments made to an Order of this kind, and, therefore, we pass it as a whole or not at all.

Mr. Naylor: Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that it will be of no use for me, for instance, to make any suggestions for alteration? I know that other hon. Members are here to make suggestions for improving the wording of the Highway Code and we do not, I feel sure, agree with the Parliamentary Secretary when he describes the wording as vigorous, and colloquial and understandable by the public. It seems to me to detract greatly from the usefulness of our discussion tonight if we are told that no alteration can be made, and that we must accept it as it stands. My question is, therefore, Are we in a position, owing to that Ruling —with which I agree—to move to defer consideration of the Highway Code?

Mr. Speaker: I am merely carrying out Standing Orders. The fact of the matter is that this is an Order presented to the House which cannot be amended; it can be withdrawn and re-presented and that is the only way in which it can be amended.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, surely it would be quite in Order to make grammatical alterations— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—which do not alter the general sense of any particular sentence?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. The Order should be presented complete and whole and perfect in every respect, and we cannot go into that.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: On that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be quite in Order for the Minister if, after hearing the suggestions which will be made in the course of the Debate, he considers them to be well founded, to withdraw the Order and submit an amended Order later.

Mr. Speaker: It has always been the case with every Order, including the one which is now being discussed.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Henry Strauss: I rise to oppose the Motion. Of course, my wishes can be met by the Minister withdrawing it, as I have no doubt he will, when the whole House is convinced, as it will be, that the Highway Code—which by your Ruling we shall approve if we pass this Motion— contains a number of paragraphs which are admitedly nonsense, and many of


which say the precise opposite of that which is intended. The Minister made one slip. I did not correct him, because it was an obvious slip. He said that a number of suggestions had been made, and, as far as they dealt with the appendix, they had been adopted. Under your Ruling, Sir, they cannot be adopted. Therefore the Minister's admission in his letter to me, and admissions by the Government in another place yesterday, show that various matters contained in the appendix, as they stand, are nonsensical, and such as neither House of Parliament would dream of approving.
I believe there is one thing on which we are unanimous in every quarter of the House. Hon. Members are appalled at the slaughter on the roads, and want to do everything they can to promote road safety. On that everyone is agreed. But it is quite clear that that can only be accomplished by clear, accurate and simple language, and not by slipshod drafting, which is obscure and which, in certain places, says exactly the opposite of that which is meant. For my part, and I am sure other hon. Members did the same, I mentioned this problem of road accidents in my Election Address. I also said, and this is germane to the discussion, that it was important that we should encourage decent, simple and straightforward English. These things are not in conflict; they are part of the same problem. We should take the trouble to put this Code into simple and accurate English. I am not asking for legal draftsmanship, but for accurate draftsmanship. This document is slovenly, slipshod and inaccurate. I am perfectly aware that anyone who takes pains in the matter of language in this House is liable to be called a pedant, and that any hon. Member who troubles to do so can find, in the speech of the hon. Member who speaks in favour of good English, many examples of bad English. I do not suppose that there is any hon. Member in this House who does not at times make slips of grammar and construction. But it is an entirely different matter to send out a document, which is to be read in every home in the country, which can be quoted in courts of law, and not take the trouble to get the language right in that document. If this Motion is passed, this Code will be passed "with the approval of Parliament." I really do not think we

want it to be used in our schools and sent to the higher forms for the pupils to detect and correct the more elementary grammatical errors so as to convey the Minister's meaning with accuracy.
When I raised the matter last Thursday, and gave notice of my intention, I did not imagine that I was the only hon. Member who objected to this document in its present form. It may be that, at that date, I was the only one who happened to have read it. Now it has been read in various quarters and, no doubt, I shall have the support of hon. Members in various parts of the House. Before I knew this matter was coming up tonight, I sent to the Parliamentary Secretary, in all friendliness, my criticisms of the draft Code, in order that it could be put right before being sent to either House of Parliament. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House originated the very first Highway Code, he was wise enough to publish it, to listen to comments from all quarters, and to produce a revised Code before it was ever submitted to the House.
Because many hon. Members wish to speak, I shall not deal with all the points in this Code that invite criticism. I will merely give sufficient points for the House, if they will be good enough to follow them, to reject this Motion, should the Minister be unwise enough to proceed with it. Will the House be good enough to turn, in the first instance, to page 29 of the Code? Let me call attention to the third of the general hints. I will first read it quite simply, as it stands, and then I will say what I think it is intended to convey. This hint on driving consists of these remarkable words:
When driving, keep both hands on the steering wheel unless you are performing a necessary driving function.
What I have some reason to believe the draftsman intended was:
When driving, keep both hands on the steering wheel except when you have to remove one hand to perform some other necessary driving function.
What the Code says, as it now stands, is "Keep both hands on the steering wheel unless you happen to be steering," for example.
As a result of your Ruling, Mr Speaker, if this Motion is passed, this Code will, according to a statement in another place last night, go in this ridiculous form into


every home in the land. What will they think of this House?
Lower down on this same page, missing two hints, we come to this very remarkable one:
Unless compelled by driving conditions, avoid driving closely behind the vehicle in front of you. If you do, your vision is restricted. …
"If you do" will mean, of course, "If you do avoid driving closely behind …" This is, of course, an example of perfectly reckless writing, with the grammar out of control. What the draftsman thought he had said was not "avoid driving"; it was either "do not drive—" or "never drive—", in which case it would be possible to let the next sentence remain. An alternative way of dealing with it would be to leave "avoid driving" as it stands, and then go on, in the next sentence to say
Such driving will restrict your vision …
etc. It is quite easy. There are a certain number of teachers in the House, who, if their pupils produced that which the Minister of Transport, with the aid of the Ministry of Education, is now putting before the House, would have a good deal to say, and would take a gloomy view of their pupils' prospects.
Let me deal with one more of the hints on driving. It is the last paragraph in these hints, which hon. Members will find on page 30. It is a long one. I shall not attempt to redraft it, because it is, as it stands, such complete nonsense that I am not confident that I can even guess what it means. I can guess what certain parts of it mean. It begins:
A good driver, though he may use different controls in quick succession, should be very observant and never allow himself to be placed in such a position that he must try to do too many things at the same time.
To pause there for a moment, it is quite obvious that the words "though he may use different controls in quick succession" do not qualify the words "should be very observant," but qualify the words later in the sentence "never allow himself to be placed in such a position." In other words, roughly what is meant by the first sentence is "A good driver should be very observant. Though he may use different controls in quick succession, he should never allow himself to be placed in such a position that he must try to do too many things at the same time." Then it says "his whole method

of driving should be mapped out." Then we get this remarkable sentence:
It should be deliberate and thoughtful, which means that he should never need to be hurried, as he must always be master of his machine.
The next sentence starts rather remarkably "In other words" though the second part of the previous sentence had tried to explain matters by the words "which means." I think that the words may mean "which means that he must always be master of his machine and never need to be hurried." Or, possibly, it means to say "which means that he will never need to be hurried since he will always be master of his machine." Either of these would make some sort of sense, whereas the paragraph as it stands is complete, and, I may say, admitted, balderdash. Another not very important point is in "Hints on Cycling" on the same page—page 30. "Hints on Cycling" include this remarkable statement "at slow speeds, or when turning a corner, the toe may catch the front mudguard." [Interruption.] I am dealing with a rather important document in rather a technical way. "When turning a corner, the toe may catch the front mudguard." I assure the House the toe is most unlikely to be turning a corner, unless the rider and the cycle are doing so. What the draftsman meant to say is not "when turning a corner, the toe may catch" but "when you are turning a corner, your toe may catch."
Before we leave this part of the Code, let us turn for a moment to page 18. On page 18 there is a picture of a gentleman performing marvellous evolutions with a whip. It says "I am going to turn." Then it says:
After rotating the whip, incline it to the right or left to show the direction in which the turn is to be made.
Admittedly it would be better if it said "in which you arc about to turn."

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: Read the bit in black above it.

Mr. H. Strauss: I will most willingly yield to the hon. Gentleman in one moment, but I thought he might like to know that this criticism has been agreed by the Minister as being a right criticism.

Mr. Ungoed-Thomas: If the hon. Member would simply read the whole of the passage, and if he had read the whole of


the passage on page 30, it would be clear. The part in black, which he avoids reading, is "I am going to turn." It does not require much common sense to come to the correct meaning.

Mr. H. Strauss: The hon. Member seems to have misunderstood. I did, in fact, state, "I am going to turn." I was going to say, as a matter of wording, if one wants to use the simplest words understood by everybody—it is quite rightly the Minister's view—it is better to say "To show the direction in which you are about to turn" which everybody understands at once, instead of saying "The direction in which the turn is to be made." It is not one of the important things: it is a point of drafting. The Minister has said in a letter to me that he agrees with that criticism, and in another place the same point was made and those who spoke for the Government agreed with it.
I have dealt with some of the admitted absurdities. There are many more but these are admitted. If the Minister were allowed to alter those parts of the Code he would do so and he has written to me giving this undertaking. But as has been ruled, Mr. Speaker, he cannot do so. The only remedy is to refuse approval for this Code and then the Minister could bring back another Code on another occasion. It does not mean that we shall be without a Code: we shall go on with the existing one. There are objections, rather serious objections, to certain passages of what the Minister himself calls the Code. May I for convenience deal with these not in order of importance but in order of pages? Would hon. Members turn to Rule 10 on page 3?

Mr. McGovern: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in Order to conduct a Debate in which hon. Members are asked to follow a Code when copies of that Code cannot be obtained at the Vote Office? The Vote Office intimate they have approached the Ministry and cannot get the necessary copies.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: There were more copies given to the Vote Office than there are Members of Parliament. If hon. Members take a large number, we cannot control that, but obviously we did not want to print an unnecessary number before Parliament approved of it.

Mr. H. Strauss: May I offer the hon. Member a copy?

Mr. Speaker: I would like to say in answer to the conundrum presented to me by the hon. Member that the matter is somewhat difficult. Hon. Members are entitled to have copies but if copies are not available we have a difficult situation.

Mr. William Foster: Is it in Order for an hon. Member to take more than one copy and leave other hon. Members without a copy?

Mr. Speaker: This is a novel situation again. Of course hon. Members can take more than one copy, but they ought not to take more than one or two. If a larger number were taken, there might not be any left.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Department did not wish to print more copies of the Code than were necessary until Parliament had approved it but surely it was up to the Minister to have printed all the copies necessary to enable hon. Members of this House to read the document. We have taken a great interest in the Code and without copies we are discussing something in the dark. I have applied for a copy at the Vote Office but have been unable to obtain one.

Mr. Driberg: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I have myself obtained a copy of the Code at the Vote Office which I have passed on to a friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but when I asked for another copy ten minutes ago, I was informed that they had had a thousand copies all of which had been disposed of, but they had tried to get more from the Stationery Office. Could not a messenger be sent to the Stationery Office?

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am informed that at the present moment it is impossible to get a copy. I do not know whether it would be in Order to move to report Progress to enable Members to obtain copies.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am informed that there were 1,200 copies placed in the Vote Office. Surely that is a reasonable number. The Ministry has done all that is proper in this matter. If there has been a run on them in fifties and hundreds, we cannot be expected to cope with that.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: According to the information given, a thousand copies were provided a fortnight ago—not yesterday or tonight. I submit that in a matter of this importance, hon. Members are entitled during the Debate to expect to be able to find adequate numbers in the Vote Office. As an hon. Member, and a Minister, with long experience, I have never before known occasions on which adequate supplies of documents or papers have not been available. We are entitled to move to report Pro-

gress in view of the fact that large numbers of hon. Members have not the document in their possession.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman cannot move to report Progress, but he can move that the Debate be now adjourned.

Mr. Hudson: I beg to move, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 85; Noes, 231.

Division No. 278.]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hope, Lord J.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Barlow, Sir J.
Howard, Hon. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Osborne, C.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hurd, A.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Buchan-Hepburn, P, G. T.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Renton, D.


Carson, E.
Jennings, R.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Challen, C.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Kendall, W. D.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Snadden, W. M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lindsay, HI. (Solihull)
Spearman, A. C. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lipson, D. L.
Spence, H. R.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Drewe, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Duthie, W. S.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fletcher W. (Bury)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. H. (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Gage, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Turton, R. H.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Marples, A. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Grimston, R. V.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Harris, H. Wilson
Mellor, Sit J.
White, J. B.(Canterbury)


Head, Brig, A. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Herbert, Sir A. P.
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.




NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Comyns, Dr. L.
Foster, W. (Wigan)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.


Attewell, H. C.
Crawley, A.
Gallacher, W.


Austin, H. L.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gibbins, J.


Baird, Capt. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Gibson, C. W


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gilzean, A.


Berry, H.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Gooch, E. G.


Binns, J.
Deer, G.
Goodrich, H. E.


Blyton, W. R.
Delargy, Captain, H. J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Boardman, H.
Diamond, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Dobbie, W.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Dodds, N. N.
Grenfell, D R.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Grey, C. F


Bramall, E. A.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Grierson, E.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Brown, George (Belper)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Haire, Flt-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Burden, T. W.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hardy, E. A.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Harrison, J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Haworth, J.


Champion. A. J.
Ewart, R.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Cobb, F. A.
Fairhurst, F.
Herbison, Miss M.


Cocks, F. S.
Farthing, W. J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Collick, P.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Hobson, C R.


Collins, V. J.
Foot, M. M.
Holman, P.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Forman, J. C.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)




Hoy, J.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Stamford, W.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, J. D.
Stecle, T.


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Nally, W.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Naylor, T. E.
Stokes, R. R.


Irving, W. J.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Janner, B.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stubbs, A. E.


Jay, D. P. T.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Summerkill, Dr. Edith


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Swinger, S.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Oliver, G. H.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Orr, Sir J. Boyd
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Keenan, W.
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Kenyon, C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


King, E. M.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Kinley, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Timmons, J.


Kirby, B. V.
Parker, J.
Titterington, M. F.


Lang, G.
Pearson, A.
Tolley, L.


Lavert, S.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


LOT, F. (Hulme)
Perrins, W.
Walkden, E.


Leonard, W.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Lever, H. H.
Price, M. Philips
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Pritt D. N.
Warbey, W. N.


Lewis, T (Southampton)
Proctor, W. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Pryde, D. J.
Weitzman, D.


Logan, D. G.
Randall, H. E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Lyne, A. W.
Ranger, J.
West, D. G.


McAdam, W.
Rankin, J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


McAllister, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


McEntee, V. La T.
Rhodes, H.
Wigg, Colonel G. E.


Mack, J. D.
Robens, A.
Wilkes, L.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


McKinlay, A. S.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Royle, C.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


McLeavy, F.
Scollan, T.
Willis, E.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Segal, Dr. S.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Shackleton, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Wilson, J. H.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Wise, Major F. J.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Woodburn, A.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Woods, G. S.


Mathers, G.
Simmons, C. J.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Medland, H. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Vales, V. F.


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Zilliacus, K.


Mikardo, Ian
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Monslow, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Mr. Collindridge and


Morley, R.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Mr. Popplewell.

Original Question again proposed.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I raise a point on your Ruling? As by silence you acquiesce, Mr. Speaker, I will venture to put my views before the House. May I draw your attention, first, to the Code generally? I would suggest to you that the Highway Code starts on page 2 and ends, as with the old Code, on page 22 with "The Signs Given." Thereafter, this little booklet sets out what are called "The law's demands ". The law's demands have already been approved by this House and if, Mr. Speaker, you turn to any of the matters contained on pages 23 to 28 you will find that therein is set out the Jaw. For example, on page 27, dealing with pedal cycles, it says:
You must observe traffic signals and signs.
The law was passed by this House 16 years ago in the Road Traffic Act, 1930, Section 49. I submit that this House cannot, by rejecting this Code, withdraw

all the Statutes mentioned on pages 23 to 28, so that we cannot, on your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, be rejecting the whole of this Code. We can only be rejecting the matters between pages 2 and 22. Further, included in heavy print on page 32 is Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. We cannot reject that Section by rejecting this Code. I submit strongly, Mr. Speaker, that you reconsider this Ruling and consider again, in view of the submissions I have made, that matters contained in this Code after page 22 are merely setting out the law as it exists, and merely drawing the attention of the public to the existing legislation.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad I am not a lawyer. I think that these are interesting matters which lawyers, no doubt, can discuss among themselves. I am merely governed by the fact that it seems to me that this is really analagous to a Bill with a Schedule. I want to look at the thing from a commonsense point of view. I gather it was said in another place that amendments might be made by a Minister


to the Appendix. Is the Minister, therefore, allowed to alter the law? It seems to be an odd doctrine which the hon. Member is trying to support, when he says that this is merely setting out the law, and that if it can be amended it alters the law, I feel that the whole document ought to come as one to the House of Commons.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: It is often found that those who are not lawyers speak very good law by speaking good commonsense. If the hon. and learned Member will look at page 29 he will see that it says nothing about the law at all, but is headed "Hints on Driving." I want to deal with certain rules, and to ask the House, if we are concerned with the serious problem of diminishing road accidents, whether they are satisfactory. Rule 10 is addressed to pedestrians, including children, and you therefore want to put the thing as simply as you can. The Rule states:
On a footpath do not walk alongside the kerb in the same direction as the nearer stream of traffic.
If, as I believe, the Rule means this, how would this do?
On a pavement or footpath do not walk near the kerb with your back to the traffic.
This has been suggested by the Pedestrians' Association.

Mr. Stokes: You might start him walking sideways.

Mr. H. Strauss: The comment of the hon. Member for Ipswich applies as much to the Rule as it stands as to my suggested amendment. In Rule 30 the Minister has, quite rightly, tried to effect an improvement on the existing Code by collecting in a single Rule what was previously divided among several. It gives five cases where you should not overtake. Most of them are perfectly simple—at a corner or bend, or at cross-roads, for example. The first case, under (a), runs as follows:
Unless you can do so without forcing the overtaken or approaching vehicles to swerve or reduce speed; ".
Any hon. Member who has studied good drafting knows that you avoid a double negative wherever possible. Would it not be better if, instead of saying, "unless you can do so without forcing," you said "if by doing so you force"? I give that advice to the House. I am perfectly certain that any teacher would tell you that it is clearer and better if you do not use

a double negative. Let me now turn to Rule 31, which reads:
Never cut out, that is, do not turn from the near side sharply without giving ample warning and making sure that it is safe to do so.
I believe that means:
Never cut out. That is to say, never turn from the near side sharply, but give ample warning and make sure that it is safe.
Hon. Members should bear in mind, if they want the words after "that is" to define what came before, that it is not a good idea to say, "Never cut out, that is, do not turn. …" It would be far better to say, "… that is, never …" —to repeat the "never," as was done in the last Highway Code. To make a change that simply introduces obscurity is not a good idea. I beg hon. Members to note Rule 46. This is a Rule to which great importance is attached. I hope hon. Members will follow this, because the Minister said, in his opening remarks, what importance is attached, and rightly attached, to what is printed inside the back cover. Rule 46 deals with that material on the back cover, and it says:
 Take a pride in your driving. …
I ask hon. Members to notice the next words—
The good driver knows how stopping distances increase with speed. …
I have tried that sentence on a number of people outside, and at first they had not the slightest idea what was meant. I think that in this House we all know what it means, but let me point out how the smallest change to accurate drafting would make it clear. "Stopping distances" should not be put in the plural. What is meant is that the stopping distance increases with the speed; in other words, with a little more expansion,
the stopping distance, that is to say, the distance within which he can pull up, increases with his speed.
[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. There are hon. Members whose simple laughter demonstrates their ignorance of the whole problem with which we are dealing. They will not shorten the advice which I feel it my duty to give to the House, in a matter that I have taken the trouble to study. To attempt honestly to clarify the Highway Code, the object of which is to avoid road accidents, is not a trivial or unimportant job.
Let me give another example. Hon. Members will scarcely think this credible, but the rule I have just quoted says at the end: "(See pages 29–30)." It completely forgets to refer one to the inside of the back cover, which is the one important point in this connection which the Minister mentioned in his speech. Let me mention Rule 51. This is the only example in all the Rules where my objection is purely on grammar. I object to Rule 51 as it stands solely on the ground of its complete and notorious illiteracy. I do not think it is improper that a university Member should object on that ground. The Rule says:
 A speed limit is imposed for reasons of safety which may not always be obvious. To exceed it is to take a risk, as well as being an offence.
The word "being" has not got any construction of any sort; "as well as" happens to be a conjunction and not a preposition. One can reduce the sentence to English by writing "besides" instead of "as well as," or one can say, "If you exceed it, you take a risk and also commit an offence." "As well as being" is there simply illiterate. If this goes through in its present form, this paragraph, among others, will be set in the schools by intelligent teachers of English, many of whom are my constituents and write to me, as an example of abominable grammar. The schools will be asked to correct the grammar and will be told that this language was approved by both Houses of Parliament.
The last Rule to which I will refer is Rule 53. It is headed "Vehicle Condition," which I believe means "Condition of vehicle." That would be much clearer because "condition" sometimes has a legal meaning. But there is also a point of substance in the rule itself which has been raised by those who speak for pedestrians. The rule speaks about the fitness of the vehicle to be used on the road and says:
 Give regular attention to brakes, steering and tyres.
That is all good advice, but there is no allusion to the importance of an un-obscured number plate and of seeing that it is clean and not obscured. Everybody knows what the pedestrians and cyclists feel about the need for good driving on the roads and for identifying a motor car the driver of which indulges

in bad behaviour. That is not unimportant, and it should appear in the Rule.
I am grateful to the House for the patience with which they have listened to what I have had to say, but I am not going to apologise for having taken the trouble to study this Code and to bring these errors to their attention. Let us see what the position is. If the Minister persists in this Motion, we know from Mr. Speaker that not one word of the nonsense which I have quoted can be altered. It will be sent to every home in the land in this nonsensical form. Admittedly "do" appears where "don't" is meant.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Certainly it does. It is no good hon. Members saying "No." If they will turn to page 29 and the paragraph I have referred to, they will see that it says: "If you do …", meaning "If you do avoid driving closely behind the vehicle in front …"—when precisely the opposite is intended. Therefore, this booklet will contain hints which are admittedly nonsense. It will contain the hint, "when driving, keep both hands on the steering wheel unless, for example, you happen to be steering." I am astonished at the Government. If the Government do persist in this Motion, it will at least be known through a Division that there are Members in the House who would refuse the sanction of Parliament to a Code which admittedly contains nonsense. The fact that it also contains good sense is no answer. The remedy is to remove the nonsense, to redraft what is bad and to return to the House with a Code than can be approved.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Paget: We have heard a typical lawyer's argument. What has been done is to take words which have a simple and obvious meaning—[HON. MEMBERS: "To whom?"]— which any ordinary individual would understand and to apply to them ingenious constructions which give them different meanings. Every profession requires its jargon. Every profession finds that ordinary English as understood by the man in the street lacks sufficient precision to be able to express the particular meanings required by that profession. Thus medicine, engineering and law all have their particular jargons. The jargon of the lawyer has to express not merely a particular and obvious meaning, but has to exclude any


other possible construction. That has not been applied to this Code, whereas the Code is drafted for the man in the street and not for the lawyers. Here we have a lawyer opposite reading it as a lawyer and complaining that it is not drafted suitably for lawyers. Of course it is not; it is not intended to be—

Mr. H. Strauss: Not at all.

Mr. Paget: There is a perfectly obvious simple meaning to every one of these Rules which any ordinary man in the street will understand perfectly well without going in for professional essays in the intricacies of grammar.

11.16 p.m.

Flight-Lieutenant Crawley: I cannot quite follow the line taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on this matter. I must confess to having some sympathy with some of the criticisms made. In view of the authority of the hon. Members for the universities, it would be impertinent to say very much about good English, except just to make this observation: that good English is not a tiresome thing, it is not a waste of time and it is not a matter of snobbery. It is simply a question of saying things in the most direct and the shortest way possible, and it is the greatest economy and the best way of being efficient. I will make one point about that before I sit down, but my criticism of this document—which I do not expect to be withdrawn, but which I do ask the Minister to look at again with a view to publishing another edition—is not of the precepts, which are unexceptionable, but of its presentation and its lack of imagination. This, after all, is a document which is intended to save life— presumably that is its main purpose. People are supposed to get hold of it, to be struck by it, and to memorise it. The one thing it should do is to appeal to people's imaginations, so that they will remember it and talk about it and really get it into their minds.
There was before the war, as many hon. Members will remember, another Highway Code and an unofficial document published with it which I cannot help feeling would have been a best seller even if it had not been issued free. It was drawn up by a humorist and a very famous artist. I remember even now, and I have not looked at it again, some of the drawings in it. One dealt with the

question of what signals you should make when on a public highway or anywhere else. It was of a figure dressed in a topee riding a camel across the Sahara, with nothing in sight, and putting out his hand because he wanted to turn to the right. Another I remember was of a figure—not of Colonel Blimp but of a person more likely to be on the benches opposite than on these—in a crowded thoroughfare with a cigar in his mouth, a stick under his arm, and hand behind his back, stepping off the pavement into the middle of the traffic with one eye on the marked crossing saying, "Damn those spots. I'm going to cross this street where I like." These appealed to the imagination.
Now one comes to this document, and again we find there are drawings. Obviously the Minister will say that they are not meant to fulfil quite the same purpose, but I say that if you have drawings in any publication they should be drawings which strike the imagination, so that people look at them with pleasure, if possible, but at least not with great distaste, and do remember them. First of these drawings is a policeman. The fact is that the drawing does not look like a policeman. Then one comes to a cyclist, who has a black cap and a bald pate, and who looks rather like an overdressed convict. The fact is that these drawings are repellant. One's only feeling when one looks at them is that one does not want to look at them again. It may seem a small matter, but details of that kind are very important—psychologically much more important than one is apt to remember when one is busy.

Mr. Keeling: Does the hon. Member realise that it is a complete waste of time to criticise the drawings or anything else, unless he is prepared to ask the Minister to withdraw the Code, so that we can have a better one?

Flight-Lieutenant Crawley: I do not agree. The precepts require to be published. I am suggesting that this is the place to criticise the form of this Code so that when it is republished it can be revised. [An HON. MEMBER: "It cannot be revised."] Surely there are ways of revising any document. It is worth making the point that I am not a lawyer. I have only read this as a road user. I do not quite agree with my hon. Friend.


I will read one paragraph, which I think I now understand, after reading it several times, to see if the House takes the same view. On page 13, it is stated:
 When leading an animal, always place yourself between it and the traffic and keep the animal to the edge of the road. This rule applies equally whether you are walking or riding 
It may be possible to ride a horse and lead him at the same time. The other difficulty is that if one is riding a horse it is difficult to place oneself between the horse and the traffic.

Mr. Pritt: Does the hon. Member concede the possibility of riding one horse and leading another?

Flight-Lieutenant Crawley: What I am saying is that when. I read that, although I have ridden many horses, that was the construction I first put on it, and when I asked other hon. Members I found that it was the construction they put on it. Even to a plain man it was not very plain. Indeed, I wondered whether the Parliamentary Secretary was thinking of an acrobatic horseman who was going to imitate those people who perform at reviews and other functions, who hang on to the saddle by their knees, trailing their hands on the ground.
Lastly, I think that even in the text imagination is of importance in any document like this. Surely the whole difficulty about this question of road safety is that everybody knows what he ought to do—all the precepts are really obvious; the difficulty is to get people to remember them at the right time. To do that, although we must have a Code, which must be set out plainly, it is no use, even in the Appendix, setting out the same type of observation in plain words. We must touch people's minds, interrupt their habit of thought, get something which will stick, so that they will remember at the right time what we are trying to get them to remember. On these grounds, it is worth reconsidering this Code, and by the necessary means, revising it at a later date.

Captain John Crowder: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question? I believe that when anybody applies for a driving licence he or she has to answer the following question: "Have you read the Highway Code?" If one

puts "Yes, but I did not understand it, and I think it means nonsense," will that preclude the applicant from getting a licence from the local authority to drive a motor car?

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Kendall: I also want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question, a very simple one. If it be a fact that he has agreed to make the changes suggested by the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), and, from the Speaker's Ruling, the Parliamentary Secretary is unable to make these changes, is it not rather foolish to print a lot of these books, many many thousands of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Millions."]—-millions of them, when they will have to be withdrawn? I think that is surely the question round which the whole of this matter revolves. Whether or no the Parliamentary Secretary does agree, many of the things contained in this booklet must be changed, and, if that be so, surely the right and proper thing to do is to withdraw it. There is nothing dishonourable in that. Withdraw this, have it redrafted, and have it presented to the House of Commons without all this criticism and without all the ridicule poured on it from this side of the House and by the hon. Member opposite. Surely that is the proper thing to do.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. King (Penrhyn and Falmouth): May I first express the utmost sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary? I cannot imagine anything more horrid than to have to be responsible for an essay running to 32 pages, to be read by some 15 million people and criticised by everybody in this House word for word. Therefore, we ought not to be too severe in what criticisms we have to make.
I believe it is a custom of this House that, where a Member has a vested interest, he should first declare his interest. For many years I taught English. I have a vested interest in, shall I say, King's English, and when I look at some of the words in this book I do find it extraordinarily difficult to defend. I do not want to go through many examples; some have already been quoted; so I will confine myself to one on page 11. I may say that, originally, I had a list of 14, but I do not want to weary the House with more.


 If you use a direction indicator, see that it is returned to neutral as soon as your movement is completed.
Surely what the writer means is "as soon as your turn is complete." Movement presumably means when the car comes to a standstill, which may be in Edinburgh. I know there are persons who think this use of words is not important. I cannot share that view. There are two things that must strike one. First, the point of view of the motorcar driver. This book is going out with the authority of Parliament, and I think there is something to be said for the view that it should not be a party matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all right saying, "Hear, hear," but I am really sorry that the hon. and learned Member who first raised it seemed to me to be using it as a piece of political opportunism. It is just that it makes it so much the more difficult to say what I have said.
Having said that, there are two points I want to make. The first is that this will probably be quoted in courts of law, and in the courts of law one must have a sentence which is crystal clear. Second, the correct use of the English language is, and ought to remain, a matter which we regard as of consequence. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider withdrawing the Code and re-issuing it in another shape later on. I appreciate his difficulties. I understand that if that were done it would be difficult to get the pamphlet sent out for many months. Therefore we have to weigh one case against the other—whether it is better to send out this pamphlet imperfect, or whether it is better, on the other hand, to delay for many months a Code which may be of material value and, even, save life. These are the two points to be considered, and they are not so simple as hon. Members on the other side think. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will find it possible to withdraw this Code, amend it and issue it more clearly. I wish he had never introduced it in this form.

11.30 p.m.

Sir Alan Herbert: May I as one who for many years has tried to learn English pour a little oil on the waters, or the flames, as the case may be? On the whole, I think that this document is a good honest job. On the whole only. I think a real effort has been made to observe the three rules of writing, to have something to say, to say it clearly

and to say it attractively. But quite naturally the draftsman has not succeeded everywhere. I support every word of what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the English Universities {Mr. H. Strauss) said. It is not true to say that such objections are "pedantry." It is not pedantic to bowl straight. To kick a ball straight at the goal is not pedantic. We do not say it is pedantic when hon. Members opposite tell us the best way to get coal. We listen with attention. It is not right when my hon. and learned Friend speaks on this subject, to which he has given so much study, to laugh as if what he says is mere scholastic pedantry. Nor is it true to say, as the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) suggests, that all the sentences criticised are "simple and obvious." They are not. They have to be simple and obvious, not merely to us, who are, of course, educated and intelligent and brilliant people, but to the flapper driving her first car.
I am not going to weary the House with further examples, but I would mention No. 10. I had to read it four times before I was quite clear. But the amendment proposed by the Pedestrians Association and quoted by my hon. and learned Friend is immediately clear. I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that they have sought to make use of "good, strong, vigorous and colloquial English." But I happened to write down his words beside the eloquent sentence in the Minister's foreword, of which almost every word is Latin. The sentence reads:
Each provision, whether it relates to a legal requirement or to discretionary behaviour, has been included because of its importance in preventing road accidents.
This is all right, but do not point the finger of scorn at University Members when they try to get some of the long words out. Look at Rule 41:
 Give pedestrians and pedal cyclists plenty of room. They are very vulnerable…
Well, some of us here have a knowledge of Latin. We know that Uulnus is the Latin for "wound," and that "vulnerable" means woundable. But simple people do not know what "vulnerable" means. And, by the way, a motor driver is just as vulnerable as a pedestrian, so there is not much point in the remark. I quite agree that this is not a party question. We all ought to try to get together to ensure that this is something


of which we can all be proud, of which Parliament can be proud when it emerges from this House. I do appeal to the Minister in an entirely non-party and in a friendly spirit to withdraw this document and get a small committee together to deal with the points raised. It could be done in a day.

11.35 P.m.

Mr. Pritt: I would like to reinforce the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). But the care exercised in this matter by the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) leads to the notable discovery that there is only one thing on earth in the construction of which the Tory Party are interested—words and phrases. In dealing with any English document, anybody with a sufficiently avid mind can analyse it for hours on end. I have done it myself, but I have always been wise enough not to do it in public. When one comes down to the seriousness of it, one finds that there is an English which produces a great precision, and which right hon. Members on the Front bench say is necessary and the only safe way in which to legislate. Then there is the English which is understood by the ordinary layman. I have had to master both. I have had to do it in order to prepare cases, and I have had to write books. Remembering that, I do not know why one cannot sympathise with the Minister, because he has to write for 15 million. I never reached such a public. I am envious of it. But let us examine the position. If we allow the lawyers to correct this and that—.

Mr. Basil Neild: Is this not the position? Is the hon. and learned Member not forgetting that, under Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, a failure to observe the provisions of the Highway Code may be relied upon as tending to establish or to negative liability in civil or criminal proceedings, and that, therefore, the courts will have to construe the provisions which this House is now considering?

Mr. Pritt: That is not a matter to which I am addressing myself. Many of the parties before our courts are people who do not understand that, and many will not understand it. The point about this Code

is that one may issue something which the ordinary layman cannot understand. It should be something which he can understand, but if he has lawyers' criticisms all over the place, one will have something which is not understood. It should be in ordinary lay English.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Wilson Harris: Much has been said from the point of view of plain English. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) has lately popularised the sentiment, in which I join, that he wants to see the people happy. I want to see the people happy, and I also want to see the Parliamentary Secretary happy, but why he was happy when he held up this document is past understanding. He claimed that this document was simple, and it is not. He said that it was clear, and it is not. He said that it was concise. It is not. Because it is none of these things, we ask, not as lawyers, not as university Members, but as laymen, that this pamphlet be put in clear and concise language. The hon. Member for Penryn and Fal-mouth (Mr. King) talked about King's English. By "King's English" I understand using short words where you can instead of long, using few words where you can instead of many, using Anglo-Saxon words where you can instead of importations from Latin and French. It is because this booklet sins against all those canons that I join very earnestly in the appeal made to the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw it and bring it in again at the beginning of the resumed Session, and have it published at that time.
I do not follow my hon. and learned Friend entirely; I have a better view of the pamphlet than he, for a reason which I think he will admit. It is quite obvious that this pamphlet has been written by a rather intelligent office boy in a kind of language with which he is not quite familiar. I do not mind what kind of language the Minister of Transport uses in his own publications, or what he does with them, but as many hon. Members have pointed out, this has to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and it is a very serious matter that so incurably sloppy a document as this should go out with the imprimatur of the "Lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this Parliament assembled." This House of Commons is a historic institution; it


has declared war and has made treaties of peace; and when it is proposed that it should approve of such a profound statement as this:
 A slippery road is dangerous ",
adding the injunction:
 Watch your step ",
I think it is time we looked a little further into the matter.
The fact is that there is a great deal of good sense in this booklet, and a great deal of nonsense. It is essential to separate the one from the other. Obviously if you remove the nonsense, if you remove what is puerile, if you remove what is superfluous, the quality of the whole document is immediately raised, and it becomes what it ought to be and fulfils the purpose it sets out to fulfil. As an example of the waste of words, using many words where few words would do a great deal better, let me quote Rule 26:
 When traffic in front of you is held up, never attempt to gain a forward position by encroaching on the offside of the road.
I do not claim to know what "gaining a forward position" means unless it is " going to the head of the line," in which case I would simply say, " Do not run up to the front on the offside." A little further on is another example of ten words being used where three would be better and clearer. At the bottom of page 28 we read:
 A pedestrian may not remain on a pedestrian crossing longer than is necessary for the purpose of passing from one side of the road to the other with reasonable despatch.
It simply means, " crossing the road," but is thought necessary to use ten words, " passing from one side of the road to the other," adding " with reasonable despatch," meaning " at a normal pace."
With regard to intelligibility, here is a hint on driving which I have discussed with very many hon. Members, and I do not think any of us have vet arrived at a clear interpretation:
Keep a sharp look-out for changes in road condition. Learn to notice quickly, and use extra care where the camber of the road is against you or where the surface is loose, highly polished, or covered with leaves.
I cannot understand what "use extra care when the camber of a road is against you" means. I have reached the conclusion, and it is a rather reassuring conclusion, that it means exactly the opposite of what it says. If the camber of the

road is with you, you slide down and skid. Yet this says precisely the opposite—"against you."

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: How can the camber be either with you, or against you?

Mr. Wilson Harris: The hon. Member must not ask me that. I understand that it has been acknowledged by the Parliamentary Secretary himself that a great deal of the " Hints on Driving " part of the appendix, if not sheer nonsense, is capable of great improvement and calls urgently for it. Mr. Speaker's Ruling makes it clear that this matter cannot be improved without the recommittal of the whole of the Highway Code. I would like to ask whether, knowing of this nonsense, knowing that it is hardly intelligible, knowing a great deal of it to be stupid, the Parliamentary Secretary is going to force this document on to the public.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: If I do not follow the last speaker he must understand that it is not because I do not have sympathy for some of the criticisms he levelled at the Code, though most of it dealt with mere drafting points and trivialities. We should remember that while we may reject the Code, accidents on the roads will be mounting if we do so. What we have to ask ourselves is what is the plain meaning of the rules in this Highway Code for the ordinary common-or-garden road user—pedestrian, cyclist, motorist or horse driver. Do the points raised in criticism justify the holding up of this Code? I contend that they do not. The road accident position is such, I think, that we cannot possibly afford to hold up the issue of this document. It is a splendid thing that it is going into every household and not, as was the case with the last Highway Code, to motorists only. It has a message for all road users.
I have already gone through the category of road users, and generally speaking I think the Code is handy and reasonably attractive. One thing which does appeal to me is that it puts proper stress on the safety of children and the necessity for persuading parents to advise their children as to the various rules they should follow in crossing roads where motor traffic is passing. I would not like to see this Code held up for any but the gravest


reasons, and I do not think that any reasons which would justify its being held up have been put forward tonight. There was too much crossing of the t's and dotting of the i's in what was said by the hon. and learned Member for tsie Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). It is perfectly clear to me what is the general meaning of the Code, and we all recognise, I think, that it is only part of a concerted plan to cure what is a grave social evil. It is true to say, for example, that not much can be done to improve the accident position in the country until there is a thorough reform of the road system of the country. The roads at the moment are quite unequal to the demands made on them. But that is another aspect of the matter.
The Code is very properly going to be made the Bible for all new drivers in the future. I wish it could be made the Bible for all those who hold provisional licences, and not only for those who are to apply for new licences, for I am persuaded that a great many motorists who have provisional licences are incapable of driving adequately under present-day traffic conditions. If possible they should all be put through the hoop, although I know that depends on an adequate testing staff being available. Unless this Code is thoroughly digested by all road users, and especially by motorists, the accident rate is unlikely to be reduced. I hope that the Code will be carefully studied by all road users, as I think it deserves to be, because it affects every man, woman and child in the country. If the advice it gives is properly heeded road accidents will most assuredly be reduced. I hope the House will reject the pleas put forward from the other side of the House, despite the defects of the Code, which I fully recognise, in matters of grammar and drafting.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Unfortunately I have only been able to glance intermittently at this semi-secret document, but one thing which seems to be clear is that planned English is nothing like as good as plain English. We have heard a good deal of justified criticism of the language of this Highway Code, and I think the general weight of feeling is that the Minister would be well advised to withdraw it, redraft it, and issue it later.
I hope he may be able to do that even at this eleventh hour. I should like to make a constructive suggestion. We have heard a good deal of condemnation of phrases from abroad, but we can occasionally import phrases from abroad which are of value. I would remind the House that in France there was a figure of impressive and generous amplitude called " Bibendum." He was produced by a private enterprise firm, Michelins, which throughout France produced signs and a highway code of its own. It became universal, and everyone knew this splendid and ample figure, and the short vivid phrases with which he expressed warnings. It had a very great effect in that country, where driving is violent and fast, but where nevertheless accidents are not so numerous. I hope that when the redrafting'of the Code comes along, the Minister will pay attention to the ideas and methods and the way that firm '' put over " that highway code in France.
I have one improvement to suggest from the practical point of view. What classes of vehicles are mentioned? We have motor cars which the Chancellor of the Exchequer more or less tells us are badges of shame, cars which no Socialist should be seen driving, and which we shall not be able to run when the Minister of Fuel and Power rations petrol to a greater extent. Horses will not be on the highways much longer, because, thanks to a colleague of the Chancellor, we shall not be able to feed them. The only-vehicle not mentioned is the rickshaw. In the new edition he should include that extremely popular and democratic vehicle which is of such great use in the Far East. He should devote himself to " Bibendum " and rickshaws.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I ask the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) a question? If that was all he had to say, why did he trouble to get up?

11.55 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I intervene to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a point of the utmost importance to the Principality of Wales. I join with the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) in deploring the English prose style of this document, but I hope his concern for getting this document into such a state


that it can be understood by all the 15 million people who are expected to read it will make him join me in representations to the Ministry that this document should be published in Wales in the Welsh language, as well as in English.
Recently, the county council of the constituency which I represent, the Caernarvonshire county council, like other Welsh county councils, made representations to the Ministry of Transport with a view to having a Welsh language version of this document prepared. I am sorry to say that they received a reply which showed that my hon. Friend's Department were lamentably ignorant of the true position in Wales, particularly in regard to the prevalence of the Welsh language. The reply was to the effect that the number of people who were conversant only with Welsh was too small to warrant such a separate publication.
What are the facts? The facts are that, according to the B.B.C.'s official figures, there are over 1,000,000 Welsh-speaking listeners in this country, and according to the last population census, in Wales alone there were 900,000 Welsh-speaking persons, and of those as many as 80,000 were Welsh monolinguists. This is not a small number, and I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should be as concerned about the road safety of 80,000 Welshmen as he might be about So million of any other nationality. If one rests the case merely on the fact that there is that number of monolingual Welsh people, it is a strong case, but I must point out that of the other 900,000 Welsh people, the vast majority are not really effectively bilingual. Their first language, and in many cases their only effective language, is Welsh. Therefore, I estimate that there are probably, conservatively speaking, as many as half a million people in Wales to whom this English version of the Highway Code is perfectly useless, even with the necessary grammatical emendations which have been urged from all sides of the House tonight.
While almost every other Government Department has long ago conceded to Wales the right to have a good deal of governmental literature in the language of the country, the Ministry of Transport stands out as a melancholy exception. The Ministries of Food, Agriculture and Education publish notices, advertisements, books, pamphlets, leaflets, and

even broadcast information, in the Welsh language. The B.B.C. Welsh Regional devotes 40 per cent. of its programme to Welsh, and yet the Ministry of Transport refuse to publish a document which, according to the Parliamentary Secretary himself, is a matter of life and death. I urge my hon. Friend personally to look into this matter. It affects as many as a million of the subjects of this Realm. The use of Welsh in testimony and deposition in the courts is allowed, and if this Highway Code is used for legal proceedings surely there should be a Welsh language version which can be used in those courts. I ask him, as a Welsh Member, to look into this point personally and to meet the reasonable and responsible request of the vast majority of the Welsh county councils.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. Marlowe: We are arriving at a most extraordinary position. Heretofore, this Debate has been conducted on the grounds that the Highway Code is not written in English and now the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr. G. Roberts) is complaining that it is not written in Welsh. I wonder what other language we may expect from this Government. I intervene because there have been two speeches from lawyers on the other side and I want very particularly to refer to them. I shall not go over, once more, the question whether this document is in good English or bad Welsh. I want to deal with the subject only from one point of view. I was rather surprised at some of the references made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I agree with them that if this document were meant to be a simple guide to simple people, the thing is unimportant, but it goes a great deal further than that. This is a document which is to be recognised in a court of law, and may be used as evidence of offences. It is not suggested, of course, that it creates offences, but it may be used as evidence of offences. I want to draw the attention of the House to some of the offences of which it may be evidence—

Mr. Paget: May I interrupt the hon. and learned Member on this point? The courts of law deal with two sets of language —the language of lawyers, which is used for statutes, and ordinary language used


for ordinary people, such as in correspondence, in contracts by letters and other evidence. The courts of law are perfectly capable of dealing with ordinary language for the ordinary person, as in this Code, when they come across it. They are doing it all the time. The hon. and learned Member must not confuse the two.

Mr. Marlowe: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that his legal training would have prevented him from falling into the same error as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford—

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: No, thank you —Bedford.

Mr. Marlowe: The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) said that this required a drafting Amendment. That is a complete failure to understand that this is the equivalent of a Third Reading. This document is incapable of amendment. We must take it or reject it. That is the great fallacy as a result of which many suggestions have come from all quarters of the House. Many hon. Gentlemen on both sides were not present when Mr. Speaker gave his original Ruling on the matter. The point is that we cannot amend this document, and if hon. Gentlemen believe that it ought to be altered in some way, their duty is to vote against it. It must be either taken or rejected as it stands. In reference to what the hon. Member for Northampton said just now, this is not a question of drafting; it is a question of what a court of law may look at, when it is deciding whether someone has committed an offence or not. May I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 38:
 When you are held up at a road junction by a police officer regulating traffic, or by a traffic light signal, do not turn to the left unless you get a definite signal to do so.
That contains two standards of conduct: one where there is a policeman, and the other where there is a traffic light. If you separate those, you get this:
 When you are held up by a traffic light signal, do not turn to the left unless you get a definite signal to do so.
Hon. Members must realise that there are many cases where you are held up by a traffic light and you get no signal to turn to the left; all you get is a clear signal. There is no such thing as a signal to turn to the left except where there is a green arrow. Yet under this section a court

could say that if you turn to the left from a traffic light—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Walkden: I have ridden a push bike for over forty years. I have always understood that I have certain rights on the road. [An HON. MEMBER: " Not now."] Does it not mean that if you are allowed to go forward, you may do so, or turn to the left, but if there is a one-way street, you cannot go into it? Obviously you are prohibited from doing so.

Mr. Marlowe: I entirely agree. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think he has reinforced my argument. It is exactly the point I have been putting, that under this paragraph, where there is no apparatus on the traffic lights for giving an indication to turn to the left, if you then turn to the left that may be taken as evidence of an offence—

Mr. Walkden: Mr. Walkden indicated dissent.

Mr. Marlowe: I can understand that hon. Gentlemen are surprised at it, but may I point out the facts?

Mr. Paget: Mr. Paget rose—

Mr. Marlowe: I have given the hon. Member for Northampton one turn. Now I see the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith rising.

Mr. Pritt: Surely, if you are held up by a policeman and waved to the left, that is a positive signal? Supposing you come to a set of traffic lights and there is a road to the left, and the light becomes green, that will indicate to any one who is not subnormal, that he may go straight forward or turn to the left. Is the hon and learned Gentleman really suggesting that you get no indication in that way to turn to the left?

Mr. Marlowe: Exactly. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right. I will not go over it again; it was only to illustrate the absurdity of the language used. Let me give an even more cogent example. If hon. Members look at the last paragraph on page 29 they will see the evidence of two breaches of good drafting. The first is:
 Never brake or accelerate violently at a corner; it may induce skidding.
One agrees with that as a generalisation, but that again can be split up into evi-


dence of two possible instances of bad driving. One of them is this:
 Never brake … . at a corner
What happens if you come to a dangerous corner rather too fast and you meet a brick wall? Are you never to brake—

Mr. Gallacher: Break the wall.

Mr. Marlowe: Is it to be said that you have committed a breach—

Mr. King: It does not say "never brake"; it says "never brake violently."

Mr. Marlowe: I agree, but the degree of violence depends only on the speed at which you are travelling. If you come to a corner rather fast, where there is a brick wall, it may be in the interests of good driving to brake fast.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how he would state this, in order to cover the point he is trying to make to the House?

Mr. Marlowe: I think the responsibility for that is on the Government. There are a number of ways in which this could be improved, but all I am concerned with, is exposing the ridiculous phrases which are contained in this document. Under that section, it would be evidence of bad driving, upon which a driver could be convicted of an offence, if a policeman came into court and said, "I saw him approaching a corner, and he braked violently."

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: These are only hints on driving,

Mr. Marlowe: If the hon. Member will look at the last page he will see that they may be used as evidence in court proceedings.

Mr. Gallacher: I hope the hon. Member is convicted.

Mr. Marlowe: Most of us on this side of the House cannot afford to keep a motor car but if one of the hon. Members opposite is approaching a corner very fast and brakes violently, he must not complain if a policeman comes to court and says that that is evidence of an offence under the Road Traffic Act. There is one further instance, which I will not elaborate, because it has been dealt with. It would be worth while, for it is a good debating point, and raises a good joke, if Members,

at their leisure, would look at paragraph 76, and consider how it is possible to ride a horse and retain oneself between the horse and the traffic at the same time-That again is the sort of thing which is put in this document. I ask Members to realise that this document is not capable of amendment. That is the point which really matters. We on this side will, I am sure, pay attention to what appears in paragraph 2 (b) making allowance
for other people doing something silly at any minute.
We will also remember to keep our dog under control. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise the mistakes he is making in this document, and look at the last sentence on page 12, which adjures him not to ride a machine which is too big for him.

12.13 a.m.

Mr. Emrys Roberts: I have tried to approach this question with as fair a mind as possible, and I cannot help feeling that the arguments directed to the Minister to withdraw this document and reconsider it merit his consideration. I wish to asssociate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) and the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), and to dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe). In particular, I want to ask the Minister to hearken to the plea-made by the hon. Member for Caernarvonshire (Mr, G. Roberts). There are over one million people who read and speak the Welsh language, and a very large number of them are persons to whom words convey their full meaning only when written in the Welsh language. This is important to Welsh people. The Minister of Transport has said that the numbers do not justify the issue of this publication in Welsh. That is a fantastic; statement Here is a document which will have a circulation of a million among a Welsh-speaking population. Is there any author in the country who would say that a book which can attain that circulation, is not worth issuing? I would like to ask hon. Members who are not so fortunate as to come from the Principality to consider this, because they take their cars and come on holiday to that most beautiful country of Wales, and the way in which the Highway Code is observed by the people of Wales is of the utmost importance to all who come to the


country. I do ask for most earnest consideration of this request that, not a Welsh translation of this document be issued—Heaven forbid—but that a Welsh version, drawn up by persons distinguished in the study of the Welsh language, should be made, in due course, of the Highway Code, in whichever form it may be issued. I feel certain there can be no democratic refusal of that plea.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If it be the case, as I understand it is, that the Minister, under the belief that he could alter these words after tonight, agreed to do so, but now finds he cannot do so, surely it is perverse on his part to attempt to get a Resolution of this House which will defeat his original intention. Is the Parliamentary Secretary afraid of taking responsibility in this matter? I cannot believe that if his chief had been here tonight, he would have refused to accept the obvious desire in all quarters of the House that these blunders should be put right. I feel sure the Parliamentary Secretary has now sufficient authority and position in his party to be able to take just a little responsibility tonight, and withdraw this Order. It has been said by some hon. Members that this is not a legal document, but let me put this point, which I think is a new one in this discussion. The intention of the Government was that the first half of the book should be a legal document, in the sense that it can be referred to in any proceedings in terms of Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act. The intention of the Government plainly was, from what the Parliamentary Secretary said, that at least from page 22 onwards, these parts of the book were not to be capable of being brought into court to establish a fault, either civil or criminal. That is the meaning of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement—that he did not regard these pages as part of the Code.
Let me bring it down to a practical point. On page 29, the third and fourth hints about driving are, first, that you are to keep both hands on the wheel unless it is necessary, for driving purposes, to remove one, and the second is " Never drive with your elbow on the window ledge." Is there any hon. Member in this House, at all accustomed to driving, who does not do one or other, or both of these things? Nobody objects so long as

these are hints for novices and so long as they are not part of the Highway Code. But what is the result of Mr. Speaker's Ruling? These are now an integral part of the Highway Code, and, therefore, if at any time of the day, any driver withdraws one hand from the steering-wheel for any purpose other than for driving the car, his withdrawal of his hand from the steering-wheel can be relied upon in court as tending to establish fault. Now that is plainly not the intention of the Government. It would not have arisen if the Government's reading of the law had been right—that the second part of the book is not part of the Code. But the Government have now been told their interpretation is wrong, and that this page is part of the Code. Accordingly, and I ask the House to note that, if any driver of any motor car removes either hand from the wheel for any purpose other than for controlling the car, he has committed a fault under the Code, and, if he is subsequently cross-examined in court on that question and it is proved against him, then to remove his hand from the wheel tends to establish fault, civil or criminal as the case may be.
Now, I say that was not the intention of the Government, but plainly it is the effect of this book. For that reason alone, this book ought to be withdrawn, and it ought to be made clear that it is not part of the Code. It could be done quite easily, and done subject to the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker. It could be done by saying in clear terms " Pages … are part of the Code " and " Pages … are not part of the Code." No such notice is in the Code, and such a notice cannot be inserted in future if we pass this book. Then the whole book becomes the Code and any sentence could be relied upon in any court to establish fault. Is it going to be said that any driver who rests his elbow on the window commits a fault which tends to render him criminally liable? I challenge the hon. and learned Solicitor-General to say otherwise, to deny that what the Government are asking us to pass is something entirely different from that which they intended it to be.

12.22 a.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Questions have been put to me about the action which I should recommend the House to take on the Highway Code in view of the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker. May I first say that it is striking that there has been no


criticism at all about the substance of the document? It seems generally agreed on all sides of the House, that the substance is good. That is very satisfactory. All the criticisms have been about the English of the Code, and about its grammar, and many hon. Members have argued that the English and the grammar could and should be considerably improved. When we are considering what is good English we are involved on matters of opinion. The speeches of hon. Members representing the universities advocated improvements in the wording of some of the paragraphs of the Code and some of the Appendices. I thought many of these suggestions would have worsened and not improved the English. In my opinion, where the present wording of the Highway Code is good, and clear to the ordinary person, if some of the proposed amendments were accepted the Code would be more difficult for him to understand. I admit readily that some of the points made by hon. Members were sound. I agree that some of the clauses and paragraphs in the Appendices might be improved, but I believe that the greater part of the criticisms have been trivial. They have not undermined my contention, which I made at the beginning, that the Code as a whole is clear, concise and intelligible to the ordinary man in the street.

Mr. Keeling: The hon. Member has said all the criticisms have been directed to the English of the Code. Surely he is not going to ignore the weighty arguments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) that, by Mr. Speaker's Ruling, liability is going to attach to breaches of these rules which the Government think ought not to attach.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am coming to that point. Many of the paragraphs to which exception has been taken were paragraphs in the old, existing Highway Code, and about which no criticism has been made in the past, so far as we know. Other criticisms have been about regulations passed by this House, and we cannot alter those. By and large, I claim that the Highway Code, as it now stands, is good both in English and in substance, admitting at the same time, that there are one or two phrases in it, of minor importance, which, on redrafting, would have been slightly altered with advantages. But

Mr. Speaker has ruled that we cannot make any alteration at all, even in the appendix to the Highway Code. That Ruling frankly took me by surprise. It has always been the practice in the past to quote the Highway Code, and not the foreword or appendix, in the courts. The Highway Code proper has been considered as the official document passed by this House, and I had therefore intended to make some of the smaller alterations suggested in the appendix.
Our problem, then, is this. Shall we withdraw the Code tonight and bring it before the House in October in a new form, or shall we go on with it now? It might be argued, " What do a couple of months matter? Let us get a 100 per cent. perfect article instead of a 99 per cent. perfect article." But there are in fact strong reasons against a delay of two months. We have made careful inquiries from the Stationery Office about the printing of this Code, and it is no easy thing nowadays with the pressures as they are to print 14½ million or so copies. Furthermore, we have made careful inquiries from the Post Office, and there is no doubt that, for sound, incontrovertible technical reasons, if we do not pass this Code before the end of this month, we shall not be able to distribute it to the public before the early spring of next year. If we pass it in July, we can start distributing it in September.

Mr. Kendall: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether if he withdrew this present Code, we should revert to the Code which existed? Is there such a great difference between them that it is going to make all the difference in the world if we wait until the thing is put into proper shape?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I will deal with that point in a second. If we do not get the Code today, I would point out that it means a difference of about six months in the time when it would be available to the public.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Has the Parliamentary Secretary taken into account the undertaking given by Government speakers in another place yesterday? That other place passed the Code on the footing, expressed by Government speakers, that the appendix, and particularly the hints to drivers, were going to be altered, largely on the lines I en-


deavoured to put to the House tonight. Do I gather that the hon. Member will not only advise the House to pass this Code, but will also be content that it will have been passed on absolutely opposite undertakings in the two Houses?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The Government are not at fault in this matter. We were advised that the situation was, and always had been, that the appendix to the Highway Code was not legally part of the Code. The Ruling which Mr. Speaker gave today upsets that view, which has always been held. I do not question Mr. Speaker's Ruling, but I do not think the Government can be blamed for breaking any promise.

Mr. H. Strauss: My point was that no doubt, if the House does pass this Code under the new Ruling, the Government will reintroduce it in another place, so that they do not make use of the vote that was given there on a false undertaking.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I cannot answer that point at the moment. To come back again—

Mr. Grimston: Did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to say that the General Post Office had informed him that if the Code was delayed two months, they could not effect the distribution of 14 million copies by December?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I did not quite say that. I said that the difficulties of printing and binding, combined with the distribution of the Christmas post and reasons of that sort, would in fact prevent distribution throughout the British Isles until the early spring of next year at the earliest. The difficulty, and the very serious difficulty, with which we are faced when we consider postponing publication of the Code is this: at the moment, although legally the Code exists—the old Highway Code published in 1935—in practice, it is not in the possession of the public. It is fair to presume that all the old copies had been destroyed, or most of them, and why we are so anxious to get this Highway Code out immediately is because we believe that doing so will have a material effect, through our road safety campaign, in saving life on the roads of this country. We believe the distribution of this Highway Code, accompanied as it will be by posters drawing attention to

it, and by Press advertisements drawing attention to specific injunctions, will have a marked influence on the success of the road safety campaign, and will save— one cannot calculate the number, but it is bound to save a very large number of lives—of people who would otherwise be killed, and will prevent an even greater number of injuries.

Mr. Kendall: Would the Parliamentary Secretary forgive me—he has been very kind in giving way—but does he fully appreciate what this Debate will do to this booklet in the minds of the public? It will be reported in all the newspapers tomorrow—their representatives are there in the Gallery—that a lot of ridicule has been directed against this booklet. Does he think that that is going to do it any good?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I am perfectly happy to let the public judge for themselves, and I am confident the ordinary member of the public will say that this is a clear guide to good behaviour on the highway. What therefore the Government has to consider in advising the House whether to postpone the Motion before it till the Highway Code is polished up, or whether to go on with it now, is that what is at stake is not only the phrasing of a few sub-clauses, but the life and death of many hundreds of our fellow citizens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That is how we look at it and that is the problem before us now.
Now I will deal as briefly as possible with the point made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid). Of course it is for the judge in any court to say what weight he attaches to the hints or injunctions in any part of the Highway Code. In regard to the phrase which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, which appears under the heading of "Hints on Driving," it may be that a learned judge would say it is not such a strict injunction as an actual part of the Highway Code; but it is for the judge to make up his mind what weight to give to this section.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Obviously I have not put my case clearly enough. If the Government's original view had been right, a judge could not have looked at the "Hints on Driving," because it would not have been part of the Code. I sup-


pose, therefore, that the Government intended that the judge should not look at page 29. But now a judge can, indeed must, look at page 29. Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that that is a very different situation?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: A judge will look in future, at page 29. I suppose a judge always looks at whatever is brought before him. I imagine that is so. And as I say, he will give due weight to arguments which learned counsel may put before him on the suggestions made on page 29 under the heading, " Hints on Driving." I do not think that is a very serious situation. In view of Mr. Speaker's Ruling, which I assume would be upheld legally, that will undoubtedly be the situation which will arise; but I do not find anything very terrible about it. The only other point was the publication of the booklet in the Welsh language. The proposal is attractive, but the fact is we are advised that the number of Welsh people who do not read English is well under 100,000. The Ministry of Transport has not, so far, ever issued propaganda or other instructions in any language except English; though there might be a case for issuing them in Welsh or even Gaelic. But there is the disadvantage, we are advised, that if they were issued in Welsh, the Code could not be quoted in a court of law. As one of the objects of the Code is that it may be quoted in court, we felt that this disadvantage was substantial.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: There were two points placed before the Parliamentary Secretary this evening about the position in Wales. They may not be appreciated if the Code is issued in this manner. We have produced facts and figures which I really think the Parliamentary Secretary should look at further. He has told us that he is concerned with road safety. We have 80,000 people in Wales to whom this Code is useless.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Major Milner): We cannot have a second speech from the hon. Member.

Mr. Roberts: I defer to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; tout may I put a question? Will the Parliamentary Secretary look further at this point, and undertake, further, to ask the Minister to do likewise?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I will do that with pleasure. But a Welsh translation would

not be a legal Code. I have expressed my view, and will ask the Minister to consider it.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Are we in Order in discussing this matter at all? Surely the House would be put into an embarrassing position as we would have to consider this Code in Welsh, and give it approval. Would the House be competent to do this?

Mr. McGovern: What about the 200,000 people who speak Gaelic?

Mr. G. R. Strauss: There is an equal case for producing it in Gaelic also.

Mr. G. Nicholson: There is a case for having it in English too.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The only other question which arises concerns the-revision of the whole of the Highway Code. The legal situation is that the Minister of Transport can, whenever he deems fit, bring out a new Highway Code. I have no idea when he will think it fit to do so, but it will certainly not be within six months or a year; but when he does, he will bear in mind the suggestions which have been made. If we postpone this Code, or the House does not pass it because of one or two minor imperfections in drafting, then the effect would be to postpone publication and issue to the general public by very many months. I am convinced that this would have a really serious effect on our safety propaganda, and would be the cause of avoidable death and injury to many of our citizens.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hoped that the House would be willing to come to a decision.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. John Foster: I would add my plea to those which have been made, that the Parliamentary Secretary should withdraw the Code and reconsider it. There are two points of substance in regard to which the Code affects the safety of people on the roads. On page 9 there is reference to the practice, which unfortunately is allowed in this country, of parking on the wrong side of the road. This is, in no sense, a criticism of the language used in the Code, but is a criticism of omission. We should discourage the dangerous practice of parking cars, especially in towns where traffic is dense,


on the wrong side of the road. The Code goes a little way towards meeting this problem, because it says that it is dangerous to park your car on the wrong side at night. It is also dangerous to park your car on the wrong side in day time, -which is a practice forbidden in France and America, because it has been proved to be the cause of many accidents.
My second point concerns a complete omission. It is a dangerous practice to drive a car across an intersection controlled by lights when they cannot see their way clear to get across. In other words, if the light is about to change and there is traffic all the way down, people attempt to cross the intersection although they cannot clear it. They are stopped in the middle of the road when the light turns Ted. Traffic is held up and pedestrians cannot cross. This practice is held to be highly dangerous in America and is forbidden by law. I give these two illustrations as reasons why the Parliamentary Secretary should again consider the substance of the Highway Code. Although I do not wish to intervene, like the King's Proctor, in the case of Strauss v. Strauss, I would point out that on page 4, the Code tells us before crossing a road to "stop, look right, left, and right again." But that is wrong in the case of a one-way street. In that case, if you stop, look right, left, and right again, you will be run over. This Highway Code will be taught to children in schools. In very young children it has to be done parrotwise. It has to be dinned into them by precept, by the scout-leaders going across the road first, and so on. If they follow parrotwise this Highway Code, they will be run over in a one-way street. The rule ends:
Be specially alert on one-way traffic roads.
But if one is especially alert, one has to do the opposite of what the Code tells one. The figures in the booklet have been criticised by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieut. Crawley), but I hope that one figure will be retained, the figure of the very attractive lady on the front cover, with a modern hair " do " down the back, who is being followed by a very presentable young man. It will be seen, from the way in which her left hand is extended, that she is making the signal, at page 17, "I am ready to be over-

taken." When she is overtaken, she and the young man may get into the car. They may be driving, and it is possible that the young man may have one hand round her waist. If that happens, it is quite possible that a policeman may stop them and say, " When driving, you have got to use both hands," and the young man's answer may be, "I have got to drive with one hand necessarily."
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw this Code. He said that the Government are not at fault. But the Government are in charge of the country. The Government are not some remote machine which acts under irresistible force over which they have no control—at least I hope not. If the Government are not at fault, somebody must be, and if by that the Parliamentary Secretary means that the civil servants are at fault and gave him wrong advice, I submit that it is a breach of good taste by the Government to blame it on to the civil servants. I think it is very wrong that the hon. Gentleman should have said that the Government are entirely blameless, because they acted on advice and the advice turned out to be wrong. I cannot imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary was in any way questioning your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. The only people who can be at fault—and he admitted that somebody was—are his own civil servants. I think that the Parliamentary Secretary should not, in order to get out of an obvious mistake of the Government, blame the civil servants. I ask him to look at the back page and to revise his thinking distance. He has obviously made a very serious mistake.

Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is it not time that the House came to a decision?

12.49 a.m.

Mr. James Hudson: Although the hour is late, I wish very earnestly to say something which it is all the more necessary to say after the exhibition of lack of seriousness, particularly on the part of the University Members, in regard to the relationship of this Highway Code to the very real danger on the roads, which it seeks to meet. I am very pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary has taken the stand he has done. Most of the recommendations in the Highway Code which improve it were contained in a Report which was published as far back


as 1938. There has been a general conspiracy in Governments since that day in refusal to make effective very necessary recommendations that are to be found in the Alness Report. I am very glad that even if the proposals of the Code are not perfectly grammatical and do not please the hon. and learned Member for the English Universities (Mr. Strauss), and do not please those of his constituents who write to him in the hope that they may have a successful grammatical exercise for the children in their schools, the Government have after long consideration brought this forward. I am glad that despite all the defects in the Highway Code and the one big issue that has been deliberately ignored by previous Governments—the danger in relation to alcohol—this Government has now taken a courageous stand on the matter and carried out what the Alness Committee Report recommended. It is necessary that this Code should be approved at the earliest possible moment in spite of its defects; and all the matters which have been raised have been entirely trivial in relation to the importance of the general Report. I hope that steps will be taken tonight to resist every one of the blandishments from the other side and to insist on this Highway Code being printed at the earliest opportunity.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: We have had a long Debate—

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman may not speak again except by leave of the House.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: If I may, by leave of the House, speak again, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we have had a long Debate and on this side of the House we find it impossible to believe that a Government which really meant business, would have to wait until next spring in order to get the Code properly circulated if we should defer consideration of it until we meet again. The whole Debate, with the exception of one or two speeches, has shown that hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that this Code is fundamentally unsound. The wording has been criticised from all sides of the House, and no attempt whatever has been made to answer the very important legal point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid). For these reasons we on this side of the House will certainly vote against it.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 73.

Division No. 279.]
AYES
12.55 a.m.


Adams, W. T, (Hammersmith, South)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hairs, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Allen, Scholefield (Crews)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hardy, E. A.


Attewell, H. C.
Deer, G.
Haworth, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Harbison, Miss M.


Baird, Capt, J.
Diamond, J.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dobble, W.
Hobson, C. R.


Barry, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Holman, P.


Bing, G. H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Holmes, H. E. (Honsworth)


Binns, J.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hoy, J.


Blackburn, A. R.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Irving, W. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Janner, B.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jay, D. P. T.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Ewart, R.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Brown, George (Belper)
Fairhurst, F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Farthing, W. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Buchanan, G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Burden, T. W.
Fool, M. M.
Keenan, W.


Burke, W. A.
Forman, J. C.
Kenyan, C.


Champion, A. J.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Kingborn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Cobb, F. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kinley, J.


Collick, P.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Kirby, B. V.


Collindridge, F.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lang, G.


Collins, V. J.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Lavers, S.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Gallacher, W.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Leonard, W.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Gibson, C. W.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Gilzean, A.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lyne, A. W.


Crawley, A.
Gooch, E. G.
McAllister, G.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
McGovern, J.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Davits, Ernest (Enfield)
Griffiths, O. (Rother Valley)
McKinlay, A. S.




McLeavy. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Scollan, T


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Shaokleton, Wing-Cdr, E. A. A.


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, I. 0. (Wrekin)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Medland, H. M.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Simmons, C. J.


Mikardo, Ian
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Monslow, W.
Titterington, M. F.
Warbey, W. N.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Tolley, L.
Watkins, T. E.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Weitzman, D.


Murray, J. D.
Walkden, E.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Nally, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
West, D. G.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Pargiter, G. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Pearson, A.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Pearl, Capt. T. F.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Oliver, G. H.
Perrins, W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Paget, R. T.
Platts Mills, J. F. F.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Palmer, A. M. F.
Popolewell, E.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Price, M. Philips
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Pritt, D. N.
Willis, E.


Snow, Capt. J. W.
Proctor, W. T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Soskioe, Maj. Sir F.
Pryde, D. J.
Wilson, J. H.


Stamford, W.
Randall, H. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Steele, T.
Ranger, J.
Woodburn, A.


Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Rankin, J.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Stokes, R. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Yates, V. F.


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N)
Rhodes, H.
Zilliacus, K.


Stubbs, A. E.
Robens, A.



Summerskill, Or. Edith
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Swingler, S.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Symonds, Mai. A. L.
Royle, C.
Mr. Hannan.




NOES.


Baldwin, A. E
Head, Brig. A. H.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Barlow, Sir J.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mott-Radolyffe, Maj. C E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Nicholson, G.


Birch, Nigel
Hope, Lord J.
Nield, B. (Chester)


Bossom, A. C.
Howard, Hon. A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Reland


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Scott, Lord W.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Jennings, R.
Snadden, W. M


Cuthbert, W. N.
Keeling, E. H.
Spearman, A. C M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Kendall, W. D.
Spence, H. R.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Drayson, G. B.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Drewe, C.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Turton, R. H.


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Vane, W. M. T.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Grimston, R. V.
Marples, A. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Hare, Lt.-Col. Hn. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Marsden, Capt. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harris, H Wilson
Mellor, Sir J
Mr. studholme and Major Conant


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
 That the Highway Code, prepared by the Minister of Transport under subsection (i) of Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a copy of which Code was presented on nth July, be approved.

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SPECIAL ORDERS)

1.0 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I beg to move,
 That the Central Electricity Board (Increase of Borrowing Powers) Special Order, 1946, dated 9th July, 1946, made by the Electricity Commissioners and confirmed by the Minister of Fuel and Power under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, a copy of which Order was presented on 10th July, be approved.

The Electricity Supply Act, 1926, empowered the Central Electricity Board to borrow up to a maximum of £33,500,000. But the Act also provided that that maximum could be increased by special Orders made by the Electricity Commissioners, confirmed by the Minister of Fuel and Power, originally the Minister of Transport, and with Parliamentary approval. In fact, special Orders of this kind were made in 1930, 1933 and 1941, bringing the total amount which the Board could borrow up to £70 million. This special Order, which I am asking the House to approve, raises that figure to £100 million. It is necessary because the Electricity Commissioners have already sanctioned the borrowing of sums amount-


ing to £69,875,000. The increased borrowing is needed for certain extensions of the grid system which will become necessary, and also includes the acquisition of the war grid reinforcement lines and some extension of generating stations. No objection has been lodged against the Order, either with the Commissioners or the Minister, and I therefore ask the House to approve it.

Orders of the Day — POINTS RATIONING ORDER (OATMEAL)

1.2 a.m.

Mr. Snadden: I beg to move,
That the Food (Points Rationing) Order, 1946, dated 18th July, 1946, (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 1143), a copy of which was presented on 22nd July, be annulled.
I and my hon. Friends have put down this Motion because we feel that the Government's decision to place oatmeal and certain other foods on points for the first time cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I propose to confine my remarks to that part of the Order dealing with oatmeal. I never thought that I would ever see the day in this House when the consumption of oats would be restricted in any shape or form. It is a serious blow, particularly to Scotland, for no less than 80 per cent. of the total oatmeal output of this country is produced in Scotland. We feel that this Order imposes a crushing privation upon the consumer, especially in the North, and, in fact, strikes at the very heart of our Scottish agricultural economy. When Lord Woolton was Minister of Food, he always set his face against any form of rationing of what he called the "filler " foods—bread, potatoes, and oatmeal. The fact that these three most satisfying forms of food were free from any restriction was the key to the success he achieved, and the main reason why the housewife was able to accept rationing, in a severe form, for other foods. The fact that two of the main " filler " foods are now to be rationed has come as a shock to consumers. How long it will be before all three are in the ration bag, I, personally, would not care to predict. I hope to show that this Order has, in fact, brought nearer that possibility. The idea of imposing this

system of rationing upon the consumer, particularly as regards oatmeal upon the Scottish consumer, may appear to the official mind as being rather an adroit way of dealing with a substitute for bread. No doubt, in the Ministry of Food, it has been argued that if bread must be rationed, oatmeal must be rationed as well. That may appear all right at first glance, but when the position is examined it becomes apparent that those responsible are either completely ignorant of, or, alternatively, have completely ignored the special circumstances of many thousands of families who are dependent upon oatmeal, not merely as a substitute for bread, but as an essential food in their daily life.
As many of us know, oatmeal forms a large part, in fact a major part, of the staple diet of the Scottish people, both in town and country, unlike England or Wales, where the consumption of oatmeal is negligible. In almost every Scottish home porridge is the basis, if not the whole, of the breakfast, and in many rural homes it is even the supper as well. Oatcakes, or what we call " bannocks," which, as hon. Members may know, are thick oatcakes, have their place in every rural Scottish home. In the rural areas oatmeal is bought, not by the pound, but by the stone, or even by the sack of 140 lbs. In the hills and the glens, a sack of meal is laid in after harvest to carry over the winter. This is a matter of sheer necessity, as these people may be cut off for weeks by heavy snowfalls or icebound roads. The farm workers consume porridge twice a day, and it is estimated that 70 per cent. of the Scottish agricultural workers, including no less than 8,000 shepherds, draw meal as a perquisite under their contract of service. This amount varies from 140 lbs. to 1,120 lbs. in the case of a shepherd per annum.
Hence this Order, putting oatmeal on points, cuts right across a centuries old system of farm perquisites, for such a system cannot be maintained if oatmeal is controlled at anything like two points per pound on the existing allocation of points. It is no exaggeration to say that for many classes of our people oatmeal pointing is a much more serious business than bread rationing, and further it is levelled at a particular class of worker whose work is essential to the production of the nation's food. Why have the Gov-


ernment decided to impose it? Have we now run out of oats as well as wheat? It is, of all our agricultural commodities, the one cereal which we can produce in this country in abundance. The United Kingdom acreage in 1945 was no less than 3.3 million acres, of which Scotland's share was well over 1 million acres, almost equal to all our other crops combined. We had a normal crop in 1945, and up til! March, our supplies were ample. What has happened since then? Has our stock of oats vanished, or has it been diminished to such an extent as to justify rationing on a points system? If so who was responsible? And where has the grain gone?
I think it is important that this House and the general public should know. Why is there such secrecy over this grain muddle? I suggest to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary that if there is a shortage, her Department is responsible. It. is common knowledge now that in March last there was an invasion by the Ministry of Food not only of Scotland but of the whole of Great Britain in order to secure oats for export to Germany. Milling oats are our best class of oats, other than seed, and are suitable for seed. So the right hon. Gentleman swooped down on the mills in this country and collared all the available supplies. The result of that was that the majority of mills went on short time within a matter of weeks and many of them have closed down altogether from the month of May onwards. So the Ministry of Food has been responsible for producing a shortage if there is a shortage. Had this emergency raid not taken place, there would have been no case at all for putting oatmeal on points.
The case as it stands is, to me, a flimsy case. If they had not cleaned out the mills of oats, there would have been no case at all for puting oatmeal on points, and we are entitled to have from the Parliamentary Secretary the answers to these questions: How must did her department collar? How much did the Ministry of Food gather from the mills of this country? My calculation works out at 40,000 tons, equal to two months' consumption in this country. If my calculation is wrong, the hon. Lady can correct me and give the correct figures. Is this the reason for oatmeal being put on points, as a " corollary " to bread ration-

ing? I make no complaint about supplying Germany. It may be necessary as long-term policy. But we have had no information, no figures whatever, not the slightest indication from any spokesman on the other side why rationing by points is necessary. All we have had is the bald announcement that oatmeal is to go on points. In the words of the hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. de la Bère), "the whole thing is thoroughly unsatisfactory." [HON. MEMBERS: " You mean thoroughly disgraceful."] Hon. Members may laugh, but we consider that this is a very serious question. If the oatmeal pipe-line is in as bad a way—(Interruption.) Yes, there is an oatmeal pipeline, I am sorry to see that hon. Members do not understand the position. But even if the otmeal pipe-line is in as bad a way as the wheat pipe-line, because of what has been done by the Government, there is no analogy between the two cereals, for this reason. Stocks of oats normally in this country are at their lowest at this time, because we are awaiting the new harvest, just as we are awaiting the 1946 potato crop. It is a seasonal shortage, which will pass in a matter of weeks. Combine oats will be on the market as early as the second week of September, and there will be one of the heaviest crops on record. In case the Minister argues, as he did with wheat, that labour troubles will hold up supplies from America? No such problem arises here, because we do not import oats today.
But, if the action of the Minister of Food has denuded the country of oats and created a temporary shortage is not the answer, what is the next question? Are the Government afraid that, with bread rationing, the demand for oats will skyrocket in Scotland? I say Scotland because the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary cannot be afraid of what will happen in England and Wales. She cannot be afraid of not feeding the hungry millions of Englishmen starved of bread or porridge and oatcakes. I am reminded that Dr. Johnson once said that oats were food for men in Scotland, and for horses in England. Who then benefits? Not the Englishman, but Scotland supplies. Is she afraid that Scotsmen and Scotswomen will indulge in an orgy of oatmeal consumption because bread is now rationed? If so, I suggest she has for-


gotten that, owing to the severe cut in feed-ingstuffs to animals, there will be a corresponding fall in milk output this winter. Milk, to the non-priority consumer this winter, will be measured not in pints, but in drops. It is estimated that there will be a drop of 115 million gallons. People do not eat porridge dry. One must have milk, but the chances are that there will be a lot less this year than last. So porridge should not rise in consumption.
If the hon. Lady is afraid that we are going to eat more oatcakes in Scotland because of bread rationing, well they would eat less bread—which is what she wants us to do. What Scottish consumers will now do is to consume every scrap of the bread ration because they cannot get oatmeal in sufficient quantity without surrendering valuable points. If the oatmeal consumer cannot get his oatmeal, he will turn to the alternative filler food potatoes, and the consumption of potatoes will jump. This Order may well produce potato rationing while oatmeal is left unsold because of lack of points. Oatmeal consumption, although it may seem to be a Scottish question, really affects the whole country, because of its affect upon the potato position. If the Government are determined to go on with this scheme, how is it proposed to deal with the following four categories of consumer: first, the farm worker, secondly, the shepherd and his dog, thirdly, the farmer himself, and, fourthly, the people of the Highlands and Islands? Those are the four main categories with which I am concerned. Looking through my HANSARD this morning—I was fortunate enough to get it in time—I see that the hon. Lady, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), says that the Minister will arrange for oatmeal to be supplied free of points where it is part of the farm worker's wages, and for supplies to be obtained in bulk for workers in remote areas. That reply— vague as it is may mean the case of the farm worker who, under his agreement, is entitled to oatmeal as a perquisite, but it does not apply to the 30 per cent. of Scottish farm workers who do not draw oatmeal as a perquisite, but who obtain their oatmeal on the farms in ways other than under the perquisite system. These workers who are not under the perquisite system must surrender two points per lb. to obtain the normal quantity of oat-

meal, although they consume just as much as the people who are not under the perquisite system. That is wholly unsatisfactory. What it will mean in my part of the country, where oatmeal is not a perquisite? Will be discontent and division between the people who are on the perquisite system and the people who are not. It will have serious repercussions on, the quantity of food produced, and in fact, I believe, on the health of the families of farm workers in many districts.
May I give one example of what happens to a single ploughman? He will consume, according to the perquisite system, 450 lbs. of oatmeal per annum. Hon. Members may be astonished at that amount, but many of our farm servants in Scotland live upon what is called "brose", which is oatmeal and water, and they consume it several times a day. They consume 450 lbs. of oatmeal per year. Against that the worker receives 416 points, but he requires 900 points to meet his normal consumption. Where are those points to come from? It is no good for the hon. Lady who is to reply saying. " Bring the farm workers ail under the oatmeal perquisite system, so that they may get their oatmeal off points." The answer to that is very simple: Their contracts were entered into in many cases in May, 1946, and if you interfere with that, you interfere with the whole wages structure.
The other case I want to put is this: What is to happen to the farmer himself? [Interruption.] I know hon. Members opposite do not care a hoot what happens to the farmer. At present there is nothing to prevent the farmer grinding his own meal on his own farm, or sending oats to the local miller in order to have it returned to his farm as meal. Is that practice to be allowed to continue? I want an answer to that, because the fanner is not a farm worker; he is under no system of perquisites. If the hon. Lady says, " Of course, we cannot allow that," she will be faced with the ludicrous position of the farmer being able to feed oats to his cattle and horses and not to his wife and family. I think we have said enough for it to be realised what an awful mess this thing is.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Does the hon. Member refer to porridge when he says what an awful mess this thing is?

Mr. Snadden: I do not withdraw what I said, because I do think this thing is an awful mess. At any rate, we want a clarification from the hon. Lady who is going to reply, of what the Government intend to do, and how it is going to work this system. We also want to know what is meant by workers in the remote areas. Does this include the schoolmaster, who may be living in a glen or other areas? Does it cover the fishermen? We have no information at all on that. Even if these people are covered, according to the hon. Lady's answer to the hon. Member for East Fife, they are still to be on a points system. Is that so? We will be glad to hear what the position is.
Finally, there is the case of a very important person, and that is the shepherd's dog. Some hon. Members opposite do not realise that within the next few weeks the shepherds' dogs will be gathering, in Scotland alone, more than a million lambs. If there is no food for the dogs, they will not be able to work. What is to happen to the special allowance to the shepherd for feeding his dog? Are there now to be special dog points or what? Are there now to be S.D.Ps. as well as B.U's.? Perhaps the hon. Lady will stretch a point and give us S.O.P's.—sheepdog oatmeal points. I would have thought the Minister, who represents a Scottish division, would have been here tonight. Nor do I see the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland on the Front Bench. They do not seem to think the subject important enough. I would have thought that the Minister, whose Scottish seat is far more important than being Minister of Food, would have known better than to meddle with his countrymen's staple diet in this way.
What of the Secretary of State for Scotland? I would like to know what he had to say about this. Was he consulted? Did he agree to it? It seems strange that only this morning we should get the answer on this perquisite system. Was the Secretary of State asked about it? If he agreed, he did something his predecessor would never have done. Mr. Tom Johnston would have drawn his claymore and fought another Bannockburn before giving in on this matter. We have to remember when he was Secretary of State for Scotland he launched a campaign to show people how to cook porridge; and in the second, and incidentally to increase its consumption

throughout Great Britain, in order to find a market for Scottish products. It is obvious, from the reply given to the hon. Member for East Fife this morning, that the Minister of Food came to this decision off his own bat. If he did consult the Scottish Office he must have done so afterwards. That is entirely unsatisfactory. I would say to the hon. Lady that the Minister will have something To answer for when he returns to his own constituency.
In conclusion, I want to say that if the Government are determined to go on with this scheme, the very least they can do. having denuded Scotland of her normal supplies of oats, is to exempt altogether the rural areas from this Order. That is the very least they can do. Secondly, they should give a promise now that as soon as the 1946 crop of oats is available, oatmeal will be released entirely from the points system. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr), despite the attack made upon him by the Minister of State, who said he was going to be permanently stationed in Washington—we are all very glad to see him here today, although he is not in his place. [Laughter.,] If he was here, he would tell us that this system of rationing is not necessary. But the more sensible course which the Government could take would be to abandon the whole crazy scheme. It is complex and cumbersome, a burden on officials, shopkeepers, fanners, farm workers and housewives alike. All it will do is to increase potato consumption and make potato rationing inevitable, and at the same time create a colossal black market undesired and undesirable.

1.32 a.m.

Mr. Spence: I beg to second the Motion.
I feel very sincerely that this Order has been put forward to people who do not understand the conditions under which we live in Scotland. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has had to make an announcement within 10 days altering this far reaching question of the pointing of oatmeal shows that whoever drafted this Order did so in complete ignorance or disregard of our way of life in Scotland, and the way in which our work is done. This Order is unworkable in the way in which it has been put forward, and is symtoma-tic of the mass of Bills and Orders which


we have had during the last 12 months, all of which are thrust through without due consideration. The Government have not the slightest interest in North-East Scotland. Only one Member North of the Tay represents a rural area, so what do they know about oatmeal?
My hon. Friend has given an accurate picture of the general position, but I will develop one or two points concerning its administration in rural areas. The Parliamentary Secretary has made a pronouncement regarding the unpointing of oatmeal and flour which is supplied as part of the wages of farm workers. It is clear that there is going to be unfairness. She has told us that those who receive oatmeal as part of their wages will receive it free of points, but what will happen in the case of the other people who live in the country? It is not only the farm worker who uses oatmeal; there are many other people to whom it is a large part of the daily diet. There is the owner-farmer, and there is the small crofter. Are they to receive similar consideration? I submit that the allocation of points values which are laid down have only to be examined in relation to the conversion value of BU's into points, and in relation to the existing standards of consumption, for it to be seen that the provisions of the Order will mean a cut in diet for those who live in the North-East. There are many in the country and some in the towns who will feel the pinch in the coming months unless the Order is further amended.
The hon. Lady's proposals go a little way, but they do not go far enough, and they are not wide enough. Porridge, brose and oatcakes are our staple diet. In Aberdeenshire the scale of perquisites to the farm servants is 6½ bolls for a married man and 3¼ for an unmarried man. One boll is 140 lb., so that it works out at 910 lbs. for the married man and 455 lbs. for the unmarried man. That means that, in general, country people use about that amount of oats. In my view, the putting of oatmeal on points has been done as a matter of expediency. The Order is ill-thought-out, and is the sudden action of a bankrupt Minister of Food who had to find points to implement the promise he made to the House on 3rd July that there would be plenty of points goods in the shops to satisfy converted BU's. By one stroke of the pen he has helped himself to 20 million points a week from oatmeal alone, I ask the hon. Lady to contradict

those figures if she can. The Minister has also grabbed other cereals into what I call the points pool, but I will leave it to other hon. Members to deal with them, if they wish to do so.
As a result of the new Order, the housewife will have an increasing worry and another harassing problem on her already overburdened list. For the rural population in Scotland the position will be intolerable. The hon. Lady has said that provision is to be made for oatmeal to be delivered in bulk to those who live in outlying districts. I hope she realises the way in which oatmeal is collected in Scotland. It is usually sold by the boll or 140 lbs. sack. It is no good having a paper bag with 14 lbs. or 28 lbs., which will not travel far or last long on a wet day in a farm cart or trailer. Provision must, therefore, be made to meet practical needs. Oatmeal must be bought by the boll or half boll. That means that in a rationing period the crofter's wife must be able to find 280 points.
I want to say a few words about the stocking up of the Scottish farm or cottage. This is not a matter of day-today experience, but is a longterm policy, usually on the basis of four or six months as regards the three essentials of fuel, light and oatmeal. In every farm and cottage there is what is known as the oatmeal girnal, a chest or barrel which will hold the whole winter's supply. That is normally stocked up in November and this has been done from time immemorial. Its necessity has been shown by bitter experience of storms and blocked roads, which cut off these outlying places for weeks and months at a time. It is absolutely essential that any plans for the forward purchase of oatmeal for the winter must be on a four- or six-months' basis. I hope the Minister realise this position. What has happened in the past to the little farmers and crofters, forestry workers, gamekeepers and ghillies? I met a farmer yesterday who told me that in the storm of 1941 he never saw one of his hill shepherds for three months. What would have happened to that man if he had not had in his advance supply? The hon. Lady when considering this question of winter storage should see that it is regarded from a broad and a long term view, as it is not a problem confined only to the farm worker.
I wish now to refer to the case of the mealy pudding. The hon. Lady, in reply to a Question of mine last week, said that it had to go on points. I ask her very sincerely if she would not reconsider this decision. She had insulted a lordly dish by classifying it as flour confectionery. I can only assume that the name "pudding" has misled her. What the sausage roll is to the Sassenach, the mealy pudding is to the Scotsman. In many households it is a meat dish. It comes in the middle of the meal—[An HON. MEMBER: "It goes in the middle of the male"]—and not at the end. The hon. Lady should reconsider her decision and take the same breadth of view as she did in dealing with the haggis and put the mealy pudding in the same category. We are now to get 32 points a month, which is eight more than we used to get. They must be regarded in the light of this Order. We were told that the extra eight points would help to balance any deficiencies in diet due to bread rationing, and that they would help to provide variety. But at the same time we find oatmeal, barley, semolina, macaroni and pudding mixtures put on points. In addition, our breakfast cereals were doubled in points and many other things were up-pointed. As a result of this Order, the British housewife in general and the Scottish housewife in particular have been done down. I therefore stigmatise this Order as a callous piece of legislative expedience against which I shall have no hesitation in going into the Lobby.

1.44 a.m.

Major McCallum: This Prayer against oatmeal rationing appears to cause a great deal of amusement to hon. Members opposite. I know quite well that many of them, probably all of them, would rather have left the Chamber long ago. It is not our fault, nor the fault of our constituents in Scotland, that they are obliged to wait here at the command of their Whips. It would be more fitting, at any rate to Scottish hon. Members opposite, if they were to listen to the arguments put forward in support of this Prayer instead of treating the whole thing as a matter of ridicule. Before this Order was issued I heard in my constituency expressions of anxiety that the Ministry of Food might decide, in view of what had happened about flour and bread, to put

oatmeal on points too. So I took the opportunity to write in at once to the Minister putting the views of the Western Highland and Island constituents before her. The hon. Lady very kindly answered my letter at the time and gave an assurance that the matter was being looked into. I think I am right in saying that that was before the Order was issued and the decision to place oatmeal on points had not been made public. Then came the publication of the Order, and it was seen that looking into it had not had much effect and that the staple diet of a large number of people in the Highlands and Islands was to go on to points.
That being the case, it seemed quite obvious, as one hon. Member has already said, that this position had not been thoroughly understood before the Order was issued. I at once wrote to the Minister again and asked that, in view of the special circumstances of the Western Highland and Islands, particularly the Islands, Argyllshire might be excluded from the rationing Order. It is quite true that in that part of Scotland at present we are excluded from egg control, and I based my request on the same ground, that whereas on the Islands we grow a considerable amount of oats, those oats are milled on the Islands. Now, presumably, they will be sent to collecting stations on the mainland, where they will be re-issued and sent back to the Islands in the form of rationing. That seemed to me a rather futile procedure, in the same way as it was judged to be with regard to eggs.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us exactly how many protests he has received about this Order from the Islands? I have received exactly one.

Major McCallum: I have received several protests [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"]—I could not say how many because I have not counted them—[An HON. MEMBER: "Three or four? "]. Many more than ten.

Mr. Gallacher: Were the protests from the workers or from the landlords? The landlords are very anxious that the workers should live on porridge.

Major McCallum: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have


known better. As I said the other day, I believe he is accustomed to spend his holidays in the Western Highlands, and perhaps he may even go as far as the Islands. I can assure him it is the crofters and the smallholders and the small farmers, on the Islands and in the remote areas, who have sent in these protests, and they have made strong protests against this.
I also saw in HANSARD today an answer given by the hon. Lady, referred to already, which I take it is an answer to letters I have written, and is a sequel to a letter which I have had from her about the disposition of the remote areas, not only the Islands but many parts of the mainland which are just as remote. It is this question of purchase in bulk. As another hon. Member was saying just now, it really is an impossible position to imagine that the crofters and farm workers and farmers are coming down to the nearest shopping centre to buy there a paper bag of 7 lbs. of oatmeal or, if they can bring as many points, 14 lbs. of oatmeal. That would be sent out on one of the MacBrayne or other boats, unloaded, transported ashore in a ferry boat in the normal bad weather, and the oats would arrive quite unfit for human consumption. It is absolutely essential that bulk purchase should be allowed not only to the shops on the Islands, but to those families and farms and crofts that require it. The Minister might agree to sanction it so far as shops are concerned. She may not realise, I do not believe her officials realise, that there are islands that have not got a shop. They draw their rations from the mainland. On one island they even draw them from Glasgow, which is 18 hours' steaming away. Paper bags sent out with the rations in return for the coupons will arrive in a condition quite unfit for human consumption. I ask that this particular question of bulk purchase and freedom from the points rationing scheme for the Highlands and Islands should be seriously considered, because it will cause a great deal of quite unnecessary hardship.

1.52 a.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I do not propose to detain the House for long at this hour of the morning, but there are quite a few ghosts walking about, and it is time they were laid. To begin with, the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr.

Snadden) has told the House that it has come as a shock to Scotland that oatmeal should be put on points. It has always been rather a surprise to me as a housewife that porridge oats have always been on points and oatmeal has not been on points: many housewives have asked each other how it was that porridge oats have always been on points and oatmeal never. The more I see of hon. Members opposite, and the more I hear them, the more I conclude that a Tory politician is the lowest form of animal life. They have carefully concealed the fact that this month oatmeal has been put on a two points per pound basis but that there has been an extra issue of eight points to the housewife. How does that work out? Can any Member opposite stir a pot of porridge or make one? I am very much aware that some Members opposite are experts in cooking tripe. Anyone in the West of Scotland who reads the "Sunday Mail" will know that the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) is an expert on tripe.

Major Guy Lloyd: It must be most interesting to the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) to know that the hon. Lady thinks that of him.

Mr. Scollan: Mr. Scollan (Renfrew, Western) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Hon. Members must not continue to interrupt every speech. After all, we are still debating, and not having a lot of fun.

Mrs. Mann: I think everyone knows that the hon. and gallant Member to whom I refer is on the opposite benches and represents the Eastern Division of Renfrew (Major Lloyd). Anyone who ever made porridge knows this, that a quarter of a stone of oatmeal will give four persons a good breakfast for a week; the pointage value of that week's feeding of four persons is seven. The housewife surrenders seven points, but the four persons have had an added pointage value of 32 this month. That is a fact that has been carefully concealed by hon. Members opposite.
Now let me deal with bulk making of porridge, where it has to be made for a great number of people. If we assume that a quarter of stone of oatmeal is sufficient for four persons, we will make a great mistake if we think that half a stone would be


sufficient for eight persons. On the contrary, half a stone would do for twelve persons, owing to its swelling and expanding qualities, and twelve persons have 96 extra points. I just want to suggest to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary that she might consider the deposit in advance of points, but, even so, I am not altogether persuaded that it would be necessary, due to the increased points we have all had this month. I want to finish on this. The hon. Member for West Perth said porridge was the staple diet of the Scottish people. He is living in the past—

Mr. Snadden: I am sorry to interrupt, but I think we ought to be accurate. I said it was the major part.

Hon. Members: Staple part.

Mrs. Mann: It was at one time the staple diet of the Scottish people. There was a time when the Scottish people actually had to make it up thick, and pour it into drawers, and cut a slice off as required. That time was when the Tories were in power; that was the time when they cut the 2s. unemployment grant for an unemployed man's child to 1s. Then it became necessary to rely upon porridge as the staple diet. What is upsetting hon. Members opposite is not the porridge points, it is the fact that on Tuesday next the mothers of this country are going to the post offices to lift, for the first time in their lives, 5s. family allowances in respect of all their children after the first child. That is what has upset them. You are at your wit's end now to offer some clear—

Mr. McKie: Mr. McKie (Galloway) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) wish to raise a point of Order?

Mr. McKie: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I desire to ask if the hon. Lady is in Order when she says, "You are at your wit's end."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I observed the comment but I saw no need to refer to it. It was obvious that the hon. Lady was not referring to the Chair.

Mrs. Mann: I would appreciate being put in Order by an hon. Member who

knows something about married life and porridge.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Lady has seen tit to make an irrelevant remark, but I would be very pleased to receive her instructions.

Mrs. Mann: I shall be very careful of my women friends. I was trying to give the hon. Member some good advice. I will finish with this. I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary the great danger of laxity—

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Lady said she would be very careful about her women friends. May I ask you whether she was casting any aspersions?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member did not point this out at the time the statements were made. This protest is somewhat belated.

Mrs. Mann: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would like to point out to the Parliamentary Secretary the danger of lessening the pointage value. At two points per pound it is very low. One sees oatmeal on farms, and in barns and in farm steadings. One even sees it being fed to hens. There is a danger that with the reduced balancer meal for poultry, the ordinary coarse oatmeal will be used to make up the protein value of the reduced content of balancer meal. I think there might be something in the protests of the hon. Members opposite, who masquerade now as the saviours of womenkind, and housewives in particular.

2.5 a.m.

Mr. Duthie: I find myself quite unable to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann). There is no doubt about oatmeal being the staple food in the North of Scotland. It is the staple food in Banff shire, which I have the honour to represent in this House and which is my native county. The consumption of oatmeal in Scotland is governed by the location of the individual and his or her vocation in life. In our Northern climate the cereal intake per person is higher than in any other part of the country for the sound natural reason that it is necessary. Oatmeal is the ideal heat producing cereal for the human body, the cereal par excellence for withstanding cold. It is richer in fat, and protein, and phosphorus, and in vitamin


B than wheat flour, hence its large consumption in my native county, and in contiguous counties. It is an ideal food for those whose occupations are followed, and whose lives are lived out of doors. I contend that it is completely inequitable to impose a hard and fast points rationing scheme equally applicable for oatmeal to all parts of Great Britain. In the South, in England generally, oatmeal is very largely an occasional purchase. In Scotland, particularly in the North of Scotland, it is an article of daily diet and the need for oatmeal is consequently much greater up there. I would ask the hon. Lady if, in framing this points scheme, the Ministry consulted Scottish Divisional Food Officers, the retail trade, the oatmeal millers, and the food advice centres in Scotland, together with representatives of Scottish housewives. If this had been done, I make bold to say that a points scheme somewhat different from that which we are discussing tonight would have been seen.
The Ministry of Fuel and Power has seen fit to give larger fuel rations to those living in the Northern parts of the country. I claim that there is even greater reason for a differentiation in the rationing of oatmeal, which is the main body fuel of Scotland. Those who do need a large cereal intake, require as much variety of diet as their points can obtain for them. It is wrong that these people must yield up their points to obtain their oatmeal requirements at the expense of the variety of diet which their points should provide and which they require as much as people living farther south. I do appeal to the hon. Lady to withdraw this Order, and if it has to be reintroduced, let it be re-introduced in such a way that these tremendous points disadvantages do not bear so heavily on the people of the North of Scotland. The hon. Member for Coat-bridge referred to the part played by oatmeal in the regimen of the people in the North of Scotland. I can inform her that the average consumption there is ten ounces a day, and I have that figure on the best authority, and I would ask the hon. Lady who will reply to refute that figure, if she can. That is the consumption in the North of Scotland, and I leave it to hon. Members to work out the number of points which will be required every month to make it possible. This Order has been produced

without the necessary knowledge, and most certainly without the consultation which the matter deserves and, in closing, I would ask the hon. Lady to be big-minded enough, on behalf of the Ministry of Food, to admit that a mistake has been made and withdraw the Order.

2.12 a.m.

Major Niall Macpherson: In the early part of the Debate this evening— and that seems a very long time ago— we were urged by a speaker opposite not to be mealy-mouthed. I would ask the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary at least to be mealy-minded. I would like to support very strongly, first of all, what my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) said about concessions which have been made and concessions which have not. It seems to be becoming the practice of the Government to take things away from Scotland and then give them back as concessions. They have taken oatmeal away—at any rate, they have put it on points—and now they have made a concession in allowing those who receive oatmeal as part of their perquisites under contract to continue to got it free of points. As my hon. Friend said, there are a great many farm workers who do not receive oatmeal on those terms, and I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give an assurance that all farm workers will be allowed to get oatmeal free of points. It would be unfair if certain farm workers, because they get oatmeal as part of their contractual rights, got it free of points, whereas others did not.
I wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary before on this point, and I said that the case was similar to that of the miners. The miners—I think I should be right in saying all miners—get as much coal as they require. Some get it free, some get it at a reduced price, others pay the full price.

Mr. Thomas Brown: On a point of Order. The statement made by the hon. and gallant Member should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Miners do not get coal free.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Major Macpherson: I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite understood. I said that miners get as much coal as they require; some get it free, some pay a


reduced amount and some pay the full amount, but in any case they all get coal, and I suggest that in the same way all farm workers ought to get oatmeal.
I want to put this to the Parliamentary Secretary. Will she say quite clearly what is the justification for putting oatmeal on points? The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) suggested that oatmeal was being put on points because bread and breakfast cereals were on points. Is that the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary? Because if it is, she should bear in mind the fact that oatmeal is not only used as a breakfast cereal, but it is also used as soup—or in place of soup—in the evening, and has many other uses as well. For example, it is used to make the herring a somewhat less barbarous dish. As consumed in Scotland, done up in oatmeal, it is really delicious; as it is served in this House—well, it is not so good. Will the hon. Lady make that point quite clear? Alternatively, does the hon. Lady anticipate that if oatmeal were not on points there would be a switch over from the consumption of bread and breakfast cereals to oatmeal? Does she think that? Will she say quite clearly if she had that in mind in putting oatmeal on points? I myself say that it is extremely unlikely. People consume porridge, and oatmeal in its other forms, because they like it. It is not so much an acquired as a born taste; people who want porridge insist on it. One has to bear in mind that it is a good deal more difficult to prepare than breakfast cereals, and breakfast cereals are a substitute for porridge, not the other way round. If she does not expect this switch over, surely it is utterly wrong to put oatmeal on points? I say that porridge and oatmeal are a special taste, which is specially associated with Scotland. If the hon. Lady does not feel sure of that switch over, I think it is wrong to put oatmeal on points, because in such circumstances it would simply mean that we were being put on points out of a sheer dog-in-the-manger attitude. For years, the literary boors of England have poured scorn on the consumption of porridge by human beings, and have scorned it themselves. This will simply be another example of the Socialist idea of the equal sharing of misery.

2.15 a.m.

Mr. McKinlay(Dumbartonshire): I do not intend to speak very long, because I understand there are about 16 Members on this side of the House who desire to make a few comments. We have been rationed now almost for seven years. I am not at all surprised at the hon. Members who are here for the first time saying some of the silly things they are saying.

Mr. McKie: On your side.

Mr. McKinlay: I could well retort that you have been silly for a great many years. But for seven years—

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: On a point of Order. Is it in Order for an hon. Member to tell you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you have been silly for seven years?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I had not noticed it.

Mr. McKinlay: I do not think I used a form of words which was wrong. The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) is that, and if the hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) keeps interrupting we will place him in the same category. Let me repeat: For almost seven years we have been rationed, and I always understood that hon. Members opposite claimed that all the virtues associated with rationing belonged to the régime of Lord Woolton and his successor. They even credited him with the introduction of the points system. The fact that it was conceived in Germany, of course, is conveniently forgotten. But in any case, what was the purpose of the points system? I had some experience of the administration of the rationing system in Glasgow all through the war, and at the beginning of peace. I have never previously witnessed such an artificial agitation on food rationing as I have witnessed in this House during the last four or five weeks. It is beginning to dawn on the people outside that there is something artificial about this. What was the purpose of the points rationing? It was to equalise the supply and demand of commodities at particular periods. Lord Woolton, as the first Food Minister, used to empty the housewife's larder for the weekend with a bedtime story. He manipulated points, and placed them beyond the capacity of the housewife to get


them. But that was a virtue in the eyes of Members of the last Parliament. There was never a complaint. And, if my memory serves me correctly, mills were closed down during that period. The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) gave a little squeak; but it was only a little squeak, because there was a war in progress.

Mr. McKie: On point of Order. Is it in Order for the hon. Member to refer to facts of the last Parliament? In referring to decisions, is he not thereby querying decisions taken by a majority of the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have heard nothing which the hon. Member has said that is out of Order.

Mr. McKie: Surely, a decision of the House binds the whole House, as Mr. Speaker ruled the other evening?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already said that I have heard nothing in the speech of the hon. Member which is out of Order.

Mr. McKinlay: If Members are honest with themselves, it is obvious that the world food situation is more difficult now than at any period during the war. I object to hon. Members opposite assuming that they are the only people who have any regard for either rural or industrial areas. I remember fighting a by-election in a rural area. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"] The constituency represented by the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Col. Gomme-Duncan). It was amazing the number of persons in rural areas who had heard about the party which now form the Government. I remember at Spittal Glenshee that the burning question was whether, under Socialism, private servants would be required? I remember a fellow asking if a man who folded another man's pants at night and unfolded them in the morning would be out of a job.

Sir William Darling: On a point of Order. Has a rural constituency anything to do with this?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I was waiting because the hon. Member might be using it as a matter of illustration.

Mr. McKinlay: I want to deal with the assumption of hon. Members opposite that rural areas should be excluded. The hon Member for Banff (Mr, Duthie) has given me a cue to something I always wanted to know. If oatmeal has all the virtues claimed on its behalf by my hon. Friend in generating heat, I have solved the problem of all the sulphur and treacle syrup which my mother made me take to cool my blood. I think that the industrial workers are just as entitled—

Mr. McKie: Speak up.

An Hon. Member: Wash your ears.

Mr. McKie: Mr. McKie rose—

Hon. Members: Speak up.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I would like to hear what the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) is saying.

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it in Order for an hon. Member opposite—I cannot say which one—to say, audibly, "Wash your ears"?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member has placed me somewhat at a disadvantage. Apparently his hearing is better than mine. I did not hear the alleged remark.

An Hon. Member: The remark was, "Wash your ears."

Mr. McKie: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the noble Lady the Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton) emphasised what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought the noble Lady was trying to help the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McKinlay: I do not know why the hon. Member for Galloway should pick on me—

Major Lloyd: On a point of Order, Sir. Are we discussing soap or oatmeal?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I rattier gathered or, shall I say, assumed that up to now hon. Members have been discussing oatmeal.

Mr. McKie: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I appeal for your protection. I understood the hon. Member


who was addressing the House asked you, as far as I understood him, whether the noble Lady the Member for Norwich (Lady Noel-Buxton) was in Order in asking whether my ears were clean.

Lady Noel-Buxton: I did not say a word.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That being the case, the hon. Member, who asked for a Ruling and guidance, has been guilty of false information.

Mr. McKie: I distinctly heard the noble Lady.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The noble Lady has stated that she did not speak.

Mr. McKie: Mr. McKie rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I shall not ask or insist that the hon. Member withdraw his remarks, but I think he should do so.

Mr. McKie: In view of the noble Lady's statement, I certainly withdraw in the most unqualified way.

Mr. McKinlay: I have tried not to be provocative. I want to deal with the rather selfish point of view of hon. Members opposite who want to exclude rural areas. The difficulty about excluding any particular area is that once one begins, there is no knowing where it will end. I am satisfied that there would be no question of putting oatmeal on points if the difficulty did not exist. I have sufficient knowledge of food administration to know that there is resilience in the Ministry's methods, and that they are capable of meeting difficulties which could not have been foreseen when the Order was drafted. May I say to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in a friendly way that on this side of the House, at least, we are asking that some indication should be given, arising out of the experience of putting this commodity on points, of that resilience for which the Ministry has been famed during the war? I say that and give credit to Woolton and Llewellin. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."] Excuse me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, could we call a doctor—[Interruption.]—I want to let some other hon. Members speak and I am making this suggestion to the Minister in all seriousness. I know the difficulties and misunderstandings women experience when using the points. A

commodity has never been placed on points without grousing and grumbling in the initial stages, but we are an adaptable people, and if the Minister responds and gives the same treatment to this commodity as has been given in the case of other commodities, I am satisfied that the fears of hon. Members opposite will disappear. It is a simple matter for the Ministry to meet objections which arise out of the real difficulties caused by isolation in different parts of the country. They had to do it with the egg marketing system and the milk distributing system. I have heard it said, "Come to Argyllshire and you will get all the eggs you want." I will conclude by saying, " If you come to Argyllshire, you will get all the accommodation on the B.B.C. you want as well." I ask the Minister to respond to the appeal made from this side of the House. Even if it is a plea from this side of the House, hon. Members opposite will appreciate it, too, if a concession is made.

2.32 a.m.

Lord William Scott: The House this morning has been in a mood of which Scotland anyhow would have been thoroughly ashamed if she had been aware of the position. I most humbly suggest that a House of Commons whose Members have voted themselves a thousand pounds a year might have listened seriously for one evening to what must in the very least be a considerable inconvenience to a great number of thoroughly decent citizens in Scotland. I humbly suggest to the Scottish hon. Members that they might treat this Debate as if it were fairly serious and not try to turn it into a complete rag—

Mr. Pritt: If the noble Lord will permit me to interrupt him, I think we should have found it much easier to listen seriously to the Debate if any one solitary hon. Member opposite said anything worth listening to.

Lord William Scott: We are aware of the great ability of the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt), but some of his remarks were quite unworthy of any Member of Parliament. I regret that the hon. lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) is no longer here. I hope that she will return before I come to the end my address because I have quite a lot I would like to say to her about porridge—

Mr. Gallacher: The noble Lord can see the hon. Lady outside in the Lobby.

Lord William Scott: We are aware that oatmeal is of far more importance to the people of Scotland than it is to those Sassenachs who have not yet learned its merits—

Mr. M. MacMillan: What a pronunciation of the word " Sassenach."

Lord William Scott: Possibly I do not possess the accent which one associates with that part of the Islands.
There are three matters concerning this Order on oatmeal which I think will seriously affect Scotland. The first one concerns the oatcake industry. Oatmeal having now gone on points, it will mean that one of the youngest and most successful growing Scottish industries will probably be considerably hampered. I would remind the House that, many years ago, the inhabitants of England and the rest of the world discovered what an immensely fine product from Scotland was to be found in the shape of whisky, and just as Scotland is the only country in the world which can make whisky of that quality, so I believe we can claim that Scotland is the only country that is really able to make the oatcake. During the last 30 or 40 years Britain, particularly England, has been flooded with importations, very largely from across the Atlantic, of what are called breakfast cereals various concoctions which are easily cooked and easily digested, and on which the good people of England waste an immense amount of money in the course of the year. During the last few years some farseeing and industrious Scottish people have been building up an export industry from Scotland, largely to England, of oatcake, and also of processed oats for porridge, and Scotland was building up a very successful young business which, in the years to come, might in importance have been almost a rival of their export trade in whisky. The people of England were learning at last what a very good product Scottish oatmeal, Scottish oatcake, and Scottish porridge oats may be. There is no doubt, however, now that oatmeal has been put on points, and perhaps to an even greater extent because the manufacturers are now no longer able to buy the raw material of oats, this export trade, this flourishing young business growing up in

Scotland, is likely to come either to an early end or else have its progressive career very seriously checked. It is most regrettable. One realises that if a very large proportion of Scottish oats are to be sent to the Continent or used for other purposes, that is one of the sacrifices that we shall have to make. But there it is probably the most successful of the young Scottish industries, which has grown up in the last few years, by this Order, will be, definitely hurt, if not worse.
The second matter I wanted to speak about was one on which we would like further information, and that is to what extent will the Ministry of Food assist both the shepherd and the agricultural worker in his purchase of bulk oatmeal? In the part of the world which I have the honour to represent, especially in the County of Selkirk, there are many areas where it is the normal custom for the shepherd or agricultural worker up in the hills to buy at least two bolls of oatmeal at a time. I was getting further information on this subject last weekend from the millers. They said that it was by no means unusual for a shepherd at the head of the valley, and others, to buy four ten-stone sacks of oatmeal at one time to store up for the winter months. They will probably have to forgo that this winter. In this world, one cannot have everything one wants. But will the Ministry of Food see to it that those living at the head of the valley are able to buy, at any rate, two ten-stone sacks of oatmeal for the use of themselves, their families and their dogs? I am not going to ask for four, but I believe that they should be able to buy that amount at a time. It is not only the shepherds; it is a custom that has gone on from time immemorial among agricultural workers in those parts just as much as among the shepherds.
My last point, and it is not an easy one with which to deal, is the question of the shepherd's dog. Rural Members will know of the shepherd's dog, because most shepherds, certainly in the hill districts— and it is really only the hill shepherds I am worrying about—have two or three dogs, sometimes even more. I know of one or two of the big hill sheep farms where there are two shepherds living together, with as many as nine dogs between them. On the low ground farms, the shepherds, who have fewer dogs, have far


more opportunities of getting scraps and different forms of food which will satisfy them. When one gets up on to the high ground, into the hills, where the shepherds are living far away from anything in the way of a steading or farm, there is no alternative to oatmeal on which to feed the dogs. The dogs in those areas have lived on oatmeal for just as long as those hills have carried sheep.
I am fully aware that according to the law of the land at the present moment, and for some years past, it has been illegal for shepherds to feed their dogs on oatmeal. While they are a thoroughly law-abiding set of people, they are very sensible. They regarded the order as stupid; they knew that it was impossible to enforce or carry out. They thought the matter out carefully, and continued to do the same as their forbears had done before them for generation after generation. Most of them, or many of them, experimented with the suggestion that was put forward by the Ministry of Food for the feeding of their dogs. The Ministry laid down that the food for shepherds' dogs should be national pig food No. 2. That is actually a very respectable mixture, I would not mind having a bit of it myself. There is nothing unclean about it. The only thing that the shepherds have against it is that the dogs will not eat it. Otherwise it is in every way a thoroughly respectable, thoroughly decent mixture, and very good for fattening both cattle and pigs. But it contains a proportion of palm kernel and other products, quite clean ingredients, to which the dogs appear to be allergic. Anyhow, they will not eat it. And so the shepherds continued to feed their dogs on the original food on which sheep dogs had been fed from time immemorial. I do hope the Minister of Food will assist certainly the hill shepherds; I am not really bothering about the low ground ones because they can find alternatives. If the Minister of Food wants to consider how he can do it, with the greatest of ease, I would suggest that he should work it on the same principle on which the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland allot the subsidies for breeding ewes on the hill farms. That gives a very safe basis upon which hill shepherds should be entitled to oatmeal for their dogs, and it is really only the areas which get the hill sheep subsidy

which are particularly affected by this particular Order.
I did hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge would be back by now. I had a very great deal to say to her. Probably I can cook porridge against any Member of this House, whether male or female. I believe so, and really I was quite horrified by what the hon. Lady had to say. To begin with, that any Scotsman should have bought oats that were on points for making porridge has absolutely horrified me. I was terrified lest she was going to admit she made them out of Quaker Oats or something like that.

Mr. M. MacMillan: "Scots Porrage Oats"—what about that?

Lord William Scott: I do not think there has been a morning when I have been in Scotland when I have not had my porridge. On many occasions I have made it myself, but I can assure hon. Members that I have never made porridge out of any oats that were on points, but it looks now as though I shall have to. I was terrified for fear that the hon. Lady was going to tell us next that she mixes sugar with it. It was a horrible thought. I can only console myself in the belief that she has had little connection with Scottish rural areas, because in the rural areas of Scotland we still know how to make porridge—and a very good food it is.. It is a food which we are proud to eat and always will be. Even if the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Boyd Orr), who has not been here this evening, had to declare it in years gone by as an unbalanced diet, I believe that porridge made with oats, just as much as whisky and climatic conditions, contributed to the building up of the men of the 51st Division, who showed us what the Scottish rural areas could produce. To some of the Scottish Members, it is a bit of an insult when we see our oatmeal included in the points system. It appears in this list here after sago and tapioca, and before marmalade.
I have not worked out the figures for prunes, sardines, and the other delicacies which we are promised in increasing and more varied quantities but to some of us, I would remind the hon. Lady, it was rather an insult when oatmeal went on points. We do not believe it is for the good of Scotland, but if this country is


in such a state as regards its food, if Scot land is so short of oats and it is necessary, then we are prepared to accept it. We do hope that if this is done it will not be treated as rather a cheap joke by those Members of this House of Commons who have voted themselves one thousand pounds a year.

2.50 a.m.

Mr. Pryde: I am very much affected, Mr. Deputy-Speaker — [HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up."]—If the men from the moss hags will pay attention, they will hear what the Member for Midlothian and Peebles, Southern, has to say. I am very much affected by the concern which is being evinced by hon. Members opposite on behalf of the great mass of the people of Scotland who apparently still live in the days of Robbie Burns.

Mr. McAllister: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is it in Order for the noble Lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) after making a statement about hon. Members of this House of Commons who have voted themselves a thousand pounds a year, immediately another hon. Member rises to speak, to engage in a long and protracted conversation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: There is nothing out of Order. I did not hear the conversation, and it is no concern of mine.

Mr. Pryde: The men from the moss hags, the hills, the glens and the mountains are gathered together to try to impress the British House of Commons that the staple diet of Scotland is still oatmeal. I have also heard gibes against hon. Members getting £1,000 a year. Let me say, clearly and definitely, that I know hon. Members of this House and of another place who voted themselves thousands and thousands of pounds a year and were less worthy of it than the hon. Members of the Government and of the present House of Commons.
It has been impressed upon this House that oatmeal is the staple diet of Scotland. A dead horse has been flogged, because hon. Members have appealed for the rural areas and we have already been told that the rural areas are to be exempted. I suggest to hon. Members opposite that had they shown during their 18 years of

office one tithe of concern for the people of Scotland they profess now, Scotland would be far better off today. One hon. Member made the observation that miners got all the coal they wanted. Here is an illustration of what the hon. Members opposite know of the working class in Scotland. Miners do not get all the coal they want, especially in Scotland. Hon. Members should not listen to these misconceptions. Miners are rationed for coal, just as every hon. Member of this House is rationed, and just as we are rationed for oatmeal. I suggest that if the noble lord the Member for Roxburgh and Selkirk (Lord William Scott) will inquire in the old burgh of Dalkeith he will find that the shortage of Scottish oats does not date from the month of March. It dates from farther back, and the previous Government must bear their share of responsibility for shipping the best of Scottish oats to other parts of Europe.

Mr. Snadden: Can the hon. Member say when that was?

Mr. Pryde: If the noble Lord will inquire in the old town of Dalkeith, which contains neither Ranks nor Spillers, but an example of private enterprise—an example which is a credit to the town— he will get the answer.

Lord William Scott: Does the hon. Member suggest that these oats were exported from Scotland before the Labour Government came into power in 1945?

Mr. Pryde: I want to say this to hon. Members opposite. Right from the beginning of this week they have made it appear that they, and they alone, are the Scottish nationalists. I say they are spurious Scottish nationalists. Recently when the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) and I put a challenge to them to come out in favour of Scotland, we found them to be parish pump nationalists. They are just as inconsequential on other aspects of Scottish life as they are on this particular question. Oatmeal is their latest cry. I do not know what their next cry will be. But there will be one, and they will have all the Tory Press in Scotland shrieking that they are the true exponents of Scottish ideas. I hope the Minister will concede the appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire, and allow our Conservative friends that little


measure of solace that they so much require, by giving the shepherd's dog the ration of oatmeal it requires.

3.0 a.m.

Sir William Darling: It would be unfortunate if this discussion had too narrow a Scottish conception. My objection to this Order is founded on every page, and not particularly on its application to Scotland. This Order is one of the principal instruments by which H.M. Government seek to impose what some of us regard as unnecessary, and what we all know to be irksome, controls on the people of this country. I do not know Mr. H. Broadley, Deputy Secretary to the Ministry of Food, who signs the document. I take it that he is an official who is properly authorised to do so, but I have no liking for the instruments and ordinances which he lays before me. It has been said that there is a great deal of flexibility and democracy in the Socialist plan, that it is a device and a scheme for giving effect to the will of the people. If that is so, and I have been told in conversation that these methods of government of the remote plutocracy and the effete aristocracy —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oatmeal."]—These methods of Government using Statutory Rules and Orders such as this, are remote and far from the needs of the people. This document, in the opinion of H.M. Government, is closely related to them, but it has none of the marks of flexibility and of close contact with those needs which those who have made ii claim.

Mr. Baird: On a point of Order. Is the hon. Gentleman speaking about pease brose or porridge?

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is a little dull at any time, and he seems to be duller now than usual. If he will allow me to proceed, he will perhaps understand, but I shall not be disappointed if he does not. The observation I was about to make is that this document, signed by Mr. Broadley, seems to specialise in a great many important matters. It condescends, in paragraph 1, to mention biscuits and dry wafers and marmalade, and it tells us that special arrangements have been made for the Army, Navy and Air Force Institutes, and the Department has also been far

seeing enough to make arrangements for the British Red Cross—which, it is explained, means the War Organisation of the British Red Cross Society and Order of St. John of Jerusalem. It is close to the ground in dealing with those important institutions, but it has not discovered the importance of Scotland. No definite individual reference is made to Scotland, and yet the product which has been the subject of most of tonight's discussion is the principal cereal product of that important part of this country. I think it regrettable that in an Order dealing with something which, in spite of all that has been said to the contrary, is the traditional and staple food of the greater part of one-third of the people of these Islands, this subject is not specially mentioned or dealt with. I submit that this instrument of government is a disappointing one and fails to meet the needs of the situation.
Oatmeal, the product of the oat— [Laughter]—it is something which I regret to say I never found very funny, but possibly I take a more serious view of my breakfast than hon. Members opposite—is a matter of profound and serious interest to Scotland. I want to suggest that it might be well for a Ministry which has an eye on the British Red Cross and the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes also to take into account that area which is peculiarly interested in this product. Might I give an example? The Scots, in this matter, might be trusted. Under an Imperial system long since nearly gone the Scots were trusted—nearly a million and three quarters of them today—to found the country called New Zealand, where they were allowed to conduct their business in their own way without much interference by the central Government. I suggest that the Scots in Scotland—not a million and three quarters as they are in New Zealand, but almost five millions—should be allowed free expression of opinion on what is their traditional diet. I suggest to the hon. Lady that that consultation has not taken place. As the noble Lord pointed out, the staple diet of this unique portion of these islands is considered important enough to be classed between the rice and the grape-fruit marmalade. I submit that that is offensive to the sentiment of this House; that it is very bad domestic economy, and shows a deplorable ignorance of the


characteristics of that Northern part of these islands.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member referred to Scotsmen who were in New Zealand—

Sir W. Darling: That was out of Order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Having allowed the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) the liberty of mentioning that, I must extend the same privilege to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member referred to Scotsmen in New Zealand who could farm their land without interference from the central Government. Does he suggest that the central Government drove them out of Scotland, or was it the robber landlords?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I shall not be able to allow the hon. Member to answer that question. It does not seem to apply to the Order now under discussion.

Sir W. Darling: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I shall answer the hon. Member on another occasion, when you arc more indulgent.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member must not anticipate that he will ever again catch my eye.

Sir W. Darling: This is, indeed, an evening of many disappointments. It makes me all the more eager to speak at some length as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, suggest that in the future I may not have the good fortune to catch your eye. I know that you will be tender to one who is doing something, perhaps not very well, but for the last time.
The noble Lord and other speakers have pointed out that this oat product of ours is of a unique character, and it is not possible for those unfamiliar with the rude agriculture of Scotland to appreciate its importance in our economy. The English economy has depended very largely for two generations now on imported wheat. Scottish economy has not relied to anything like that extent on imports. There is no cereal produced in the United Kingdom which is used so universally, in relation to the area in which it is produced, as our oats are. The wheat which is grown in England is milled. Furmenty, which was the old

dish of unmilled wheat taken with hot milk—an old English dish—has disappeared from the tables of the people; but oats are still taken in Scotland in the form in which they have been taken through the ages. This industry, through the stimulus given to it by the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Tom Johnston, has grown considerably. Oats are no longer, as Dr. Johnson said, food for men in Scotland, and food for horses in England—to which Boswell replied, "But, Doctor, what men, and what horses."
During the last six years, because of the restrictions on the importation of oats from overseas, the growth of the milled oat business in its packet form has been considerable, and the invasion of England by this Scottish product has been considerable. The hon. Lady knows that Canadian and American oats have been excluded from this country because of the war, and she doubtless knows that they arc likely to re-enter the country. The prestige built up in these artificial circumstances is likely to be dissipated, and it will not be encouraged by the addition of points which is proposed. People with great industrial capacity have produced a greater range of commodities, but not so characteristic as those few Scottish products. Whisky is one and it has no successful imitator. Scottish textiles is another. These Scottish oats are a basic production, and something unique in character. We have built up an industry during recent years. The oat mills—and I am a director of two—cannot get the oats we want to meet the public demand, partly due to the cereal shortage, and partly due to public taste. These factors are all new in the situation, and this putting of oatmeal on points is going to set back very seriously an industry which was thriving.

Mr. Rankin: Would not the hon. Member agree that one of the great qualities of oats is that they can be grown on soil which is of a very poor type, and that they require little care and little expense?

Sir W. Darling: I willingly say that Scotland has a greater proportion of poor land—land upon which you cannot grow wheat—than any other part of these Islands. It is true that the labour and industry of Scottish people have dragged for themselves a poor hard living out of


an unsuitable soil. In the last 20 years, oat production in Scotland has greatly improved, and it has become less of the stunted thing that it was, and more of a commodity for general consumption. There has been an enormous demand for Scottish oats in one form or another in England and elsewhere, and it is because the Scots are needing this land which is not useful for anything else, except perhaps for afforestation; that I make this special plea for the oat growing industry. It is an industry which was fostered by a former Secretary of State, and the time will come when the Secretary of State for Scotland will once again have to foster it. Scottish oats, whisky and textiles are the foundations upon which our economy rests.

Mr. Rankin: I want to say again that we have no quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on that argument. Our quarrel is a deeper one. That is not the point that is being made tonight by the Opposition.

Sir W. Darling: It gratifies me to know that the Government have no quarrel with me. I do not like a quarrel with anybody. An agreeable man, said Mr. Disraeli, is one who agrees with you. I am anxious to be an agreeable man to the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I hope she will be agreeable to me. In this matter she shows a width of mind and a capacity of understanding which I do not think the Minister of Food has, although he represents a Scottish constituency. I hope the hon. Lady will accept the suggestion which hon. Members behind her have made, that this rationing business will not continue very long. Will the hon. Lady look at the peculiar situation of the oat product in Scotland? Will she bear in mind that it cannot be produced elsewhere so successfully, that it is a crop of a unique character, that there is an expanding demand for it, that it is a staple food of the Scottish people, and that there is a growing demand for it among English people?
I ask her not to look at this with the same eye as she looks at dry wafers, including icecream cones, or fish, which means freshwater fish and fish found in the sea. I hope she will not look upon Scottish porridge oats in that way. This is a national dish, a national food, the national sustenance of a great people who,

from their ranks, found James Keir Hardie, who created the party to which the hon. Lady belongs today. Is there no gratitude in Socialism? Is it, as its enemies say, mean, greedy, grasping, narrow, intolerant, or is it wide and generous? James Keir Hardie was the product of Scottish oats. Do hon. Members opposite not feel they want to pay that debt? It will only be three months. I believe that rationing, as far as oats are concerned, will be over in three months. The more optimistic members of the party opposite tell me that probably it will be two months. I ask the hon. Lady to reconsider the matter. Let us have rationing of fish, which means freshwater fish, marmalade which means any jam or preserve, dry wafers, including ice cream cones, cups, boats, and similar unfilled wafer products. Let these contemptible English things remain rationed, but leave Scottish oats free.

3.18 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I assure the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that it is because I recognise that the Scots are a great people that I am surprised that this Prayer was put on the Order Paper.

Mr. McKie: Why?

Dr. Summerskill: Perhaps the hon. Member will exercise a little patience. I listened carefully to the speeches of the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion and to their Scottish supporters. While I recognise that they are justified in making a plea for certain categories of workers who, I know, have been accustomed to certain long-established practices in Scotland—and I intend to deal with them later—I do not believe that the fine, proud people of Scotland want privileges that are denied to the rest of Britain. The arguments to which we have listened tonight could all have been used in the Debate on bread rationing. Hon. Members have said that oatmeal is the filler for the Scottish people. Bread is the filler for the English and the Welsh, but the English and the Welsh do not present a united front in this House and ask for special privileges.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): They are against bread rationing.

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member is accustomed to listen quietly, and as I listened courteously, I shall expect the same courtesy from him. The argument which has, after all, been put forward tonight is to ask the Ministry of Food to give to Scotland what is in effect a double ration—the bread ration plus an oatmeal ration. By putting this Prayer on the Order Paper, hon. Members have, in effect, tried to come in by the back door to take an extra helping of porridge out of the national larder.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why ration it?"]—I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite are so ingenuous; that we have to tell them why we must put oatmeal on points. With the introduction of bread rationing, an increased demand for cereal products was, of course, anticipated, and there is evidence that the demand has increased. Consequently, to ensure fair distribution between consumers and to prevent the continued feeding to animals, particularly backyard poultry, it was necessary to ensure their controlled distribution.
On the subject of animals, I was very surprised to hear that the mover of the Prayer did not know his case. He told the House just now that it was customary in Scotland for the farmers to feed their sheepdogs with oatmeal. I hope that he will give me the names of those farmers because they have all been guilty of an offence against our Regulations. I should like to tell the hon. Member that he should go back to Scotland and tell his friends the farmers that they can have, if they like, a special ration of animal feeding stuffs—and the dogs qualify for that as well as the other animals—

Lord William Scott: Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what the feeding-stuff is?

Dr. Summerskill: I should like to tell the noble Lord that it is not the stuff that he would like to eat and that animals reject. It is a different kind. I think it will be found even more palatable—

Lord William Scott: What is the name of it?

Dr. Summerskill: The noble Lord and I exchange letters at least three times a week. I will let him have the recipe tomorrow.

Lord William Scott: Will it be precise?

Dr. Summerskill: It shall be precise. If the noble Lord had accepted my invitation to come to the Ministry today, he could have had the information, but unfortunately he could not accept it. Hon. Members sneer at semolina, but it is an excellent food. Semolina, rice and tapioca are all excellent foods, and I dare say that, so far as their nutritional content is concerned, they are probably as good as oatmeal. I want hon. Members to realise that the inclusion of oatmeal and all these other commodities in the bread rationing scheme will largely prevent under-counter sales and the feeding of animals on these commodities. Consumers who wish to pay points will have a fair opportunity of obtaining supplies for their own consumption. It is unlikely that many people now feeding oatmeal to animals will use their points for that purpose.
An hon. Member said, "Why ration oatmeal?" We have evidence that during the last year a very large quantity—it is difficult to assess the exact amount—of oatmeal has. been fed to animals. When we decided to ration bread and flour, we felt it was essential simultaneously to introduce some form of control of the distribution of oatmeal which would at the same time permit of the continuance of the traditional consumption of oatmeal in Scotland. The arrangements by which bread units are interchangeable with points at parity, permits the consumer of oatmeal, should he so desire, to forego all or part of his bread and flour in favour of oatmeal. But here is one point which hon. Gentlemen, who say they have such a wide knowledge of domestic matters, have overlooked. That is, that while flour is rationed at three bread units per lb., oatmeal is only two points per 1b. Therefore the heavy consumer of oatmeal still enjoys an advantage over the consumer of bread and flour.
Now I want to come to the points raised by hon. Gentlemen and I think, if they listen to me carefully, they will realise that the Ministry of Food have given probably more careful attention to the problems of Scotland than hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight. We recognise that there are certain aspects of the points rationing of oatmeal which raise special difficulties in connection with the circumstances and customs of people in Scotland, and I want to take each of


these separately. Hon. Members who are so anxious to speak, I think, when they hear what I have to say, will be well satisfied and feel that they will not need to deliver those carefully prepared speeches.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The. hon. Lady would not be a party to attempting to prevent us from speaking if we are not satisfied, after having sat here all night?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): The hon. Gentleman has made his point; he might give the hon. Lady the opportunity of replying.

Dr. Summerskill: Hon. Members know that I recognise that the local papers must be served.

Lord William Scott: Docs the hon. Lady seriously think that we have sat in the House tonight for what we can get into the local papers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Do not let hon. Members opposite judge others by themselves.

Dr. Summerskill: I want to deal first with the custom which hon. Members know full well obtains in Scotland, so far as the contractual obligation of the farmer is concerned to undertake to give oatmeal as a supplement to wages. I think it has been raised by different hon. Members. In a written reply, I have already told an hon. Member that it is not proposed to interfere with this custom, and steps are being taken to make suitable arrangements for these supplies to be maintained by means of permits.

Mr. Snadden: Could the hon. Lady clarify this question? This is the thing we want to get at. What is to happen to the 30 per cent. of the Scottish agricultural workers who are not under a perquisite system? Do they still surrender points?

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind the hon. Gentleman that every agricultural worker in England and Wales is in exactly the same position. However, we recognise this custom and therefore we are prepared to let it continue, but we cannot possibly say that every agricultural worker in Scotland should be put in a privileged position. Secondly, there are also consumers who are living in remote areas in parts of the Islands and Western

Highlands to whom monthly deliveries of supplies are impracticable, especially in winter, and bulk purchases have to be made. The usual practice up there, I understand, is to get bulk purchases in before the winter, as hon. Members have told us, and we are prepared to allow that to continue. Here is a point which I am very surprised that hon. Members have not stressed, to which we have given very careful attention.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the hon. Lady deal with the second part of my Question? I think I am right in saying that these difficulties arise in the West of Scotland. I hope this valuable concession she has given will apply to everybody who can make a proper case.

Dr. Summerskill: Certainly. Anybody who lives in remote areas, irrespective of their work. I am very surprised that few Members have mentioned the farmer who sends his oats to a nearby mill to be ground. I understand that some uneasiness has been felt by farmers in Scotland and Northern Ireland about the possibility that oatmeal rationing may interfere with this practice. In such cases, if a farmer is only having this oatmeal ground for human consumption at his own home, and is not engaging in trade in oatmeal, we do not propose to interfere with the practice. A farmer is, of course, entitled to feed his own homegrown oats to his stock, but he would not be entitled to have them milled into oatmeal and then feed the oatmeal to his stock, as that would be an offence.
The noble Lord was worried about oatcakes. I have received deputations from the manufacturers, who feel that they have been hardly done by. I wish to remind the House that oatcakes have never been rationed previously, whereas other biscuits have been put on points. Unsweetened biscuits are four points per pound, sweet biscuits eight points per pound, biscuits wholly or partly covered with chocolate 16 points per pound. Yet we are only pointing oatcakes at two points per pound. I do not think that the noble Lord need worry. Already the demand in England, Wales and Scotland for biscuits which are as highly pointed as this is much greater than the supply. Therefore, if the oatcake is to be pointed at two points per pound, I would say that the manufacturers in Scotland will find it


difficult to keep up with the demand. The noble Lord raised the question of the manufacturers. I wish to tell him that, in addition, trade users may obtain oatmeal free of points for manufacturing purposes, and black pudding and haggis will be available free of points. Again, not one of the hon. Members who have displayed such a knowledge of cooking and domestic matters, has raised the question of black pudding.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I have been trying to get in all evening to bring up the question of black pudding.

Dr. Summerskill: I promised hon. Members that I might be able to satisfy them. I hope that the hon, and gallant Member is satisfied now that I tell him that black pudding will not be put on points. It is, of course, the case that while the oatmeal content of the oatcake is high, that of black pudding and haggis is low. There is another point that has not been raised and I am surprised at this, because many hon. Members have in the past written to me about it. It has been the practice of certain consumers in England to receive supplies of oatmeal direct from suppliers in Scotland. Arrangements have been made to enable this trade to continue as in the past, but, of course, points will have to be surrendered. My final word is this: if bread rationing is removed, it will be necessary to give immediate consideration to the points rationing of oatmeal and oatmeal products. Therefore, I can assure hon. Members opposite that immediately the position eases so far as cereals are concerned, we will review the whole question of pointing oatmeal. I think the House will agree with me that my Ministry has given the most careful consideration to Scottish interests, and I therefore hope that they will reject this Motion.

3.34 a.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am sure that the House is grateful, from whatever side hon. Members may have listened to the Parliamentary Secretary, for the explanation she has given of the steps which have been taken by her Ministry to make this Order as operative as it possibly can be. But there are other points which require to be clarified, and I am sure the hon. Lady will be as considerate as she has been hitherto

in making note of them, and, if possible, securing that they are cleared up before too long an interval. If the hon. Lady thinks she has completely dealt with all the points that have been raised, it shows that she completely misunderstands the case which has been put from these Benches. The Ministry which she represents is doubly at fault in that it has introduced an Order without sufficient thought or a proper comprehension of the special needs of rural Scotland, and hurriedly made amendments to the Order which, welcome though they are, are quite inadequate. May I explain what I mean? In order to do so, I must read the form in which these amendments were announced. In the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th July, the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) is reported as follows:
Mr. HENDERSON STEWART asked the Minister of Food if he is now able to announce the arrangements made with regard to the application of bread rationing upon farmworkers' perquisites, including the provision of meal and flour, and with particular reference to farmworkers and shepherds living in remote places where the carrying of stocks of food is essential.
Dr. EDITH SUMMERSKILL: I will arrange for oatmeal and flour to be supplied free of points or bread units where it is part of a farmworker's wages; and for supplies to be obtained in bulk for workers in remote areas." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 165.]
I assume that these alterations must be made by issuing an amending Order. How can this amendment be made without issuing an amending Order? There is another point that I do not think has been covered by the hon. Lady. She has not said, in reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), what is to happen to the farm workers in Scotland—one-third of the whole—who do not receive oatmeal as perquisites in supplementation of their wages, but who, in fact, eat just as much oatmeal as the others. That is an administration question which will have to be faced, and, if the answer is not known, it will have to be found out in due course.
What about the foresters, what about the gamekeepers, what about the quarry-men, the joiners, and the other rural workers who do not get perquisites? Are they still to get their oatmeal on points, and, if so, is it fair to give this concession to a section comprising two-thirds of a


certain class of rural workers who, because of conditions of contract, happen to perquisites? What about the fishermen? Then there is another question not answered. Are the bulk supplies referred to in the Question to be available for certain classes of workers only? The reason for bulk supplies is perfectly clear and it has been given more than once in this House to-day. In certain parts of Scotland it is usual for a hill district to be cut off for three, four, five, or even six weeks during the winter months. Where such conditions obtain, where the road leading through a glen is blocked for three or four weeks, it is not only the manual workers who suffer but everybody, the minister, the farmer, the doctor and others.

Mr. Gallacher: It is not oatmeal you want; it is a snowplough.

Mr. Rankin: Is the hon. Member suggesting that these places could have no other means of transport available to bring them into contact with civilisation? Has he never heard of sleds?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am suggesting it because I know it to be the case. Year after year in the country districts this occurs, and if the hon. Member is not aware of it, he ought to get to know more about the rural parts of Scotland.

Major Ramsay: Might I remind you that the hon. Lady opposite in answer to a question said she was giving this concession—in remote areas?

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Member please address me and not another hon. Member?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The difficulty arises as to what is a remote area. It is all right for the Parliamentary Secretary to smile, as if it was a thing to be brushed aside by her charming smile without attention. It represents a big problem in remote constituencies. Is the Parliamentary Secretary going to take the figures of snowfall and average them over a period of years to find which places are cut off? I suggest that the hon. Lady is floundering in an administrative bog. Are these bulk supplies to be free of points?

Dr. Summerskill: No.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Let us examine the position. Bulk supplies are not to be free from points. The custom has been in the past for people to buy at the beginning of the season a boll of oatmeal. A boll is 140 lbs. and it is kept as a reserve through the winter, turned over and added to month by month in order to maintain the supply as a reserve against bad weather. Last Saturday I was sitting in the humble cottage of two old friends of mine in Scotland. They are very humble people, and they asked me about this and said they could not see how they were going to live up to the modest standard of subsistence which had been their practice down the years. The old man and his wife, who were rural working people, told me it is their custom to buy once a month a firlot of meal. The hon. Lady will know, but many hon. Members may not know, that a firlot is two and a half stones. It is a quarter of a boll. This is bought once a month and lasts a month. They make their own bannocks and live on bannocks and porridge and milk—and not much more than that. The firlot is 35 lbs.—two-and-a-half stones— and that means 70 points. Now, how on earth are they to spend 70 points monthly for their firlot of meal? How are these old people to do that? There will be not a single point left for any other thing, and, in fact, between them, they have not got 70 points.

Dr. Summerskill: They will have their points for their meal, but if, as the hon. Member says, they live on that, they will have their B.Us., which are interchangeable, and with the two of them that is more than 70.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady that they may be able to scrape along, spending all their points and surplus B.Us. on oatmeal, and oatmeal alone. But the point I want to make is that this is class legislation in reverse. It is legislation of that sort because it hits these humble folk and not the rest of us. It will make no difference to me and I am sure it will make no difference to any hon. Member of this House, but it is going to hit these small and humble cottar folk. That is why we are presenting this case this evening; it is why we have kept the House up to this time and why we are prepared to go on talking. It is not a thing which concerns the rich. It is a


matter which affects very much indeed the poor and humble folk of rural Scotland.

3.46 a.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I could not but help thinking while listening to the hon. Lady's speech of the candidate for examination who showed up with a paper he had been set and on which he had written, "I could not answer any of the twelve questions, but I have set myself twelve questions and these are the answers." If the hon. Lady had not answered questions put by herself, but had answered some of those which had been asked, we should have done better.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is it in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to cast aspersions across the Floor of the House at the hon. Lady when, throughout the night, he has not been in the Debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. Davies: It is a point of fact.

Mr. Hudson: The mover of this Prayer asked what had happened to the supply of oats in Scotland, but the hon. Lady has never answered that question, nor why it is necessary for oatmeal to be on points at all. She said that there was some danger of leakage. But we are all considering whether these particular articles should, or should not, be put on points, and we should have some regard to the total consumption of oatmeal in relation to the raw materials for oatmeal in this country. What is, and what has been, the weekly consumption of oatmeal? Surely, as on previous occasions, the House is entitled to know what the weekly consumption was. We know the total acreage under oats in this country— the whole of the country, both in the United Kingdom and Scotland itself. We have got a very good idea, given by the Ministry in the Statistical Abstract, of the total product of those acres. We are entitled to know the weekly consumption, and I venture to say that, in fact, the weekly consumption multiplied by 52, to get the annual consumption, is a very small proportion indeed of the total available supplies of oats in this country, and that, on the point of there not being adequate supplies, there is no case at all for this imposition.
The hon. Lady further claimed that her Department and the Minister had given very careful attention to the details of the scheme before it was published. All I can say is that the mere fact that she and her Department had to make such a substantial alteration in the scheme for oatmeal after it had been published shows that, in fact, careful attention had not been given to the problem, and shows that the conditions which prevail in Scotland over appreciable parts of the country had not been realised or taken into account. It is not, as I understand it, a matter of 2 or 3 per cent. difference that is made by the concessions the hon. Lady has announced she is going to make. That might have been due to something which had not been foreseen. Will the hon. Lady give us the percentage of oatmeal per week affected by the concessions she has announced? Will she deny that it is substantial? She knows perfectly well that it is not a matter of 3, or 4, or 5 per cent., it is not a matter of 10 per cent.; it is a matter of 25 per cent. at least of the whole consumption which she has given away as no longer to be on points. That, in my submission, does not show that proper attention had been given beforehand to what the effect of this scheme was likely to be.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: If the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to support what he is saying—I had to put a Question down for three successive weeks before the answer was given.

Mr. Hudson: This Order, against which we are praying tonight, is not limited to oatmeal. A great deal of the discussion has taken place on oatmeal, but oatmeal is only one of a very large list covering altogether some 15 or 16 pages. There are 18 parts in one Schedule alone. I am very sorry the Minister of Food himself is not here today; I think we on this side are entitled to protest at his absence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members will realise in a moment why. I repeat that we on this side are entitled to protest at the absence of the responsible Minister on a matter of such importance as this. Here is a very long list of articles which are either being put on points or whose points value is being increased. They affect in detail every housewife in the country and, what is more important, in the course of the Debate on 3rd July


I ventured to predict that what the Minister of Food would be driven to do would be to increase the points value of various foods. It is within the recollection of the House, no doubt, that the Minister jumped up in the course of my speech and denied the suggestion. Indeed, he said he could give a very definite guarantee. He said:
I can give that guarantee immediately." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 2216.]
That is about as formal a promise as any Minister can make standing at that Box. The important thing that this House should realise, and that the housewives when they come to deal with the matter will find out to their cost, is that the right hon. Gentleman has deliberately gone back on that promise. The hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) said that oatmeal was going to be two points per lb., or whatever it is, but that the housewife was going to get about eight points extra a week. But what she had not taken the trouble to work out, and therefore did not realise, was that the eight points a week that the housewife will get under this new scheme will be far more than offset by the increased number of points which she will have to give for articles which have been up-pointed, and for articles for which in future she will have to give points which previously were free of points.

Mrs. Wills: It is 32 points a month.

Mr. Hudson: The increase is from 24 to 32 points—two points a week. Twenty-four from 32 is eight; and four into eight gives two. Anyway the housewife is going to get 32 points instead of 24 points per month. As a result of putting this number of goods, previously free, on points, and as a result of up-pointing other goods, the housewife, in spite of the increase, is to be worse off than she was before, definitely worse off. I take it that the hon. Lady does not challenge that figure. We have had considerable difficulty in arriving at the figure because she, or her Ministry, does not publish the actual figures. But if any hon. Member takes the trouble to extract the figures from the Ministry, or if the hon. Lady will extract them herself, she will find that the figures I have given are accurate.
It is because we believe that putting oatmeal, so far as Scotland is concerned, on points is unnecessary, and because the Minister of Food has gone back, in this matter, on the very definite pledge he gave this House on 3rd July, that we on this side of the House shall certainly vote against this Order.

Several hon. Members rose—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Question put, " That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 178; Noes, 52.

Division No. 280.]
AYES. 
4.0 a.m. 


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Attowell, H. C.
Crawley, A.
Gallacher, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.


Baird, Capt. J.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Gibson, C. W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Gilzean, A.


Berry, H.
Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)


Binns, J.
Deer, G.
Gooch, E. G.


Blackburn, A. R.
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Diamond, J.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)


Boardman, H.
Dobbie, W.
Haire, Fit.-Lieut, J. (Wycombe)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'D'I, Exch'ge)
Dodds, N. N.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Durbin, E. F M.
Hardy, E. A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Haworth, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwisk)


Buchanan, G.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Herbison, Miss M.


Burden, T. W.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Burke, W. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Holman, P.


Champion. A. J.
Ewart, R.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Cobb, F. A.
Fairhurst F.
Hoy, J.


Collick, P.
Farthing, W. J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Collindridge, F.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Collins, V. J.
Foot, M. M.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Forman, J. C.
Irving, W. J.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Foster, w. (Wigan)
Janner, B.




Jay, D. P. T.
Noel-Button, Lady
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jeger, Or. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Peart, Capt. T. F.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Perrins, W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Keenan, W
Plaits-Mills, J. F. F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Kenyon, C.
Popolewell, E.
Titterington, M. F.


Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr E.
Pritt, D. N.
Tolley, L.


Kinley, J.
Proctor, W. T
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Lang, G.
Pryde, D. J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chistchurst)


Layers, S.
Randall, H. E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Ranger, J.
Warbey, W. N


Leonard, W.
Rankin, J.
Watkins, T. E


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Weitzman, D.


Lyne, A. W.
Rhodes, H.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


McAllister, G.
Roberts, A. 
West, D. G.


McGovern, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)]
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


McKinlay, A. S.
Royle, C.
Wigg, Colonel, G. E.


McLeavy, F.
Scollan, T.
Wilkes, L.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Shackiston, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mallalieu, ,I. P. W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Mann, Mrs J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Medland, H. M.
Skeffington, A. M.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Mikardo, Ian.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Willis, E.


Monslow, W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield. C.)
Stamford, W.
Wilson, J. H


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Steele, T.
Wise, Major F. J.


Murray, J. D.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Woodburn, A.


Nally, W.
Stokes, R. R.
Yates, V. F.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Stubbs, A. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith



Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Swingler, S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons




NOES.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hope, Lord , J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bossom, A. C.
Hurd, A.
Scott, Lord W


Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Snadden, W. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.) 
Spence, H. R.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Turton, R. H.


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J, G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Gomme-Dunean, Col. A. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
Willoughby de. Ereshy, Lord


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.



Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Drewe and Mr. Studhorne

Question put accordingly,
 That the Food (Points Rationing) Order. 1946. dated 18th July, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O.,

1946, No. H43), a copy of which was presented on 22nd July, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 53; Noes, 179.

Division No. 281.
AYES.
[4.8 a.m.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Catheart)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hope, Lord J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bossom, A. C.
Hurd, A.
Scott, Lord W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'gh W.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Buchan-Hepburn, p. G. T.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Crosthwaile-Eyre, Col. 0. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Studhome, H. G.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, C- N.


Drewe, C.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Turton, R. H.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Gomme-Dunean, Col. A. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grimston, R. V.
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Snadden and Mr. Spence.


Hare, Hn. J. H. (Woodb'ge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L





NOES.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Gilzean, A.
Poppleweil, E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pritt, D. N.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gooch, E. G.
Proctor, W. T.


Attewell, H. C.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Pryde, D. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywaod)
Randall, H. E.


Baird, Capt. J.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Ranger, J.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Haire, Fit.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Rankin, J,


Berry H.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Binns, J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, A. R.
Hardy, E. A.
Robens, A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Haworth, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Blyton, W. R.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Boardman, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M, (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hewitson, Capt M.
Scollan, T.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Holman, p.
Shacklelon, Wing-Cdr. E. A. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Hothwell)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hoy, J.
Skeffington, A. M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Buchanan, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Burden, T. W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Stamford, W


Burke, W. 
Irving, W. J.
Steele, T.


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cobb, F. A.
Jay, D. P. T.
Stokes, R. R.


Collick, P.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Stubbs, A. E.


Collindridge, F.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Collins, V. J.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Swingler, S.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Comyns, Dr. L.
Keenan, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.
Kenyon, C.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighhley)


Corbet, Mrs, F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kinley, J.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Crawley, A.
Lang, G.
Thorneycroft, H. (Clayton)


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lavers, S.
Titterington, M. F.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Tolley, L.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Leonard, W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Deer, G.
Lyne, A. W.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Delargy, Captain H. J.
McAllister, G.
Warbey, W. N.


Diamond, J.
McGovern, J.
Watkins, T. E.


Dobbie, W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Weitzman, D.


Dodds, N. N.
McKinlay, A. S.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McLeavy. F.
West, D. G.


Durbin, E. F. M.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Eds, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Wigg, Colonel G. E.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Medland, H. M.
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Evans, S. N. (Wedncsbury)
Monslow, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Ewart, R.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fairhurst, F.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Farthing, W. J.
Murray, J. D.
Willis, E.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Nally, W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Foot, M. M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wilson, J. H.


Forman, J. C.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wise, Major F. J.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Woodburn, A


Fraaer, T. (Hamilton)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Yates, V. F.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Oliver, G. H.
Zilliacus, K.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Palmer, A. M. F.



Gallacher, W.
Peart, Capt. T. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Perrins, W.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.


Gibson, C. W.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.

Orders of the Day — THRESHING RETURNS ORDER

4.16 a.m.

Mr. Hurd: I beg to move,
 That the Threshing Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 1058), dated 9th July 1946, a copy of which was presented on 15th July be annulled.
I shall be very brief although this is a matter of considerable importance to the farming community and to the food of the people of this island. This Order requires farmers to keep records of threshings of wheat, barley and rye. It also requires owners of threshing tackle to make returns of every cwt. threshed within

seven days of the work being done. Here we have a wartime control Order being reimposed. This Order was scrapped in July of last year and it has now been put on again. During the time this Order was in force, it produced no useful results, and we have put down this Prayer to find out from the Government what are their intentions in reimposing it. What does the Minister hope to get by reimposing this control which will be a vexatious mental exercise to farmers. They are at the moment feeling sore because they feel they have had less than fair dealing from the Government over the increases in


prices to meet increases in wages. This is not the time, I would suggest to the Minister, to exasperate farmers further if he wants to get the best results from food production. Already farmers and their wives are weary of form filling exercises. I myself, as a farmer, know that my wife and I have had to spend quite a considerable time in recent days working out for our men the B.U.X. and the B.U.Y. forms so that they may get their proper allocation of bread and flour, which is vital with harvest just coming on. We do not want any more form filling exercises than we must necessarily have.
In the Order which we have before us now we see that the farmer is required to make his returns in terms of cwts. The farmer does not think in terms of cwts. In my part of the country we think in terms of sacks, in some parts in coombs, in some parts in bushels and other quantities. That is a mental mathematical calculation which he has to make every time he makes his return. But there is an even more tiresome request in Question No. 4, the number of hours actual threshing. Whatever use can that information be to anybody? Whether a man threshes with a flail or with a combined harvester, I cannot see that it is of any interest to anyone. It is just a tiresome bit of calculation which the farmer has to make. Whether it is eight hours or 18, you put down whatever you choose and it does not matter to anyone. It is one of those silly questions included in the Schedule which has been continued. I ask myself as a Member of Parliament and as a farmer what the Minister will do with this mass of information which he expects to collect under this Order?
In my estimation, there are possibly, out of the 300,000 farmers in this country, about 150,000 who will be growing wheat, barley and rye, and who will be threshing it during the coming season. Most of us do not have our own threshing sets, and the threshing contractor may come round three, four or five times a year and thresh a few ricks at a time. Each of these 150,000 farmers will have about six different threshings, which means that the war agricultural committees will receive close on a million forms from farmers in the course of a year. I was informed on Monday last that the war agricultural committees were employing a staff of 10,000, which is a large staff to carry on the work in peace time.

Does this Order mean that further staff is to be engaged? During the war we had threshing officers and staff, who went round arranging the threshing of corn, seeing that everyone got their fair turn and that full use was made of the threshing machines. Does this mean a further addition to the war agricultural committees' staff of 10,000? I should like a reply to that.
It may be said for the Government that although no use is to be made of the information, and that they will not tot up anyone's threshing or check the million returns, the mere making of these returns will have a valuable psychological salutary effect on the farmers. That is sheer nonsense, because the amount one threshes depends not on filling in forms of the hours one has taken to thresh; it depends largely on the season. This season, however many forms are prepared and filled in by the farmers, the Minister of Agriculture will find, in certain areas, for instance, in Kent, that there are large areas where serious storm damage has been done. The threshing results will be very disappointing. The Minister may calculate that the average rate should be so much, but the actual amount of barley, wheat and rye in those districts will be far below the theoretical calculations of the Ministry's statisticians.
This information is really of no value to anyone in checking whether the farmer delivers all his millable grain to an authorised corn merchant or not. I am afraid, too, that a large proportion of the grain which is saved will not be millable. We have to ask ourselves whether this is just another panic measure, like bread rationing, which puts everyone concerned to the maximum amount of trouble, and is likely to achieve the minimum results. I hope that before the House approves this Order, the Minister will give us some substantial reasons why farmers are being asked to perform this vexatious form filling.

4.24 a.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I beg to second the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) has voiced most of the objections to the Order, and I can only endorse them. I object to the Order because it is futile, costly and wholly unnecessary. I would like to ask the Minister


whether, when this Order was imposed, in the early days of the war, these returns were ever checked and followed up to see if, in fact, the farmer sold the corn he returned on those forms to a miller? I suggest that in this case it will be wholly impossible for the war agricultural committees to check these returns and find out whether or not they are of any use. We have to imagine that the reimposition of this Order is to see that the farmers produce to the mills the correct amount of wheat which they have threshed out.
The first thing I would ask the Minister is this: Does he think that the imposition, or the reimposition, of this Order will prevent in any way a farmer from dis-

posing of his wheat in some other way than to the mill if he wants to do so? For instance, the threshing machine proprietors frequently have three or four different sets, and, in my experience, the proprietors do not visit these sets for some days. The result is that this threshing machine proprietor is entirely dependent upon what the farmer tells him he has taken from the box to the granary. He has no check except the good word of the farmer. Therefore, if the farmer wants to be dishonest and sell his wheat—

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, the House was adjourned at Twenty-eight Minutes after Four o'Clock a.m. till this day.